MADHU BABU M.R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The one and the only ground urged for a re-hearing of the case is the fact that the Administrative Member sitting alone has passed the impugned order of the Tribunal which has been affirmed by this Court. But the decision in Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India [(1991)1 SCC 181] relied on has been declared to be per incurium in Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research [(1994) 2 SCC 401]. There is no bar for a single Member Bench of the Tribunal to hear a case unless the case involves the vires of a statutory provision or rule as held in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and others [(1997) 3 SCC 261]. No such contingency arises in this case which deals with the imposition of a minor penalty of barring one increment on the petitioner without cumulative effect and both the Tribunal as well as this Court have upheld the same. No case for re-hearing or review of the judgment of this Court dated 1.11.2016 arises therefore and the original petition deserves dismissal only as was rightly done before.