PARASRAM THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After recording the facts giving rise to this writ petition in our earlier order dated November 17, 2021, we had called for a report from the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) as to how and under what authority the Member (Administrative) could have presided over a Single Bench and dealt with the original application of the petitioner, which pertains to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, on the face of the provisions contained in Rule 154 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 (hereafter "the 1993 Rules", for short) read with Appendix VII, entry 9 thereof.

(2.) The Joint Registrar of the Tribunal has submitted a report dated November 23, 2021. In such report, after quoting paragraph 5 of our order dated November 17, 2021, the Joint Registrar says as follows:

(3.) The order of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on which the Joint Registrar has placed reliance to suggest that the Member (Administrative) could have presided over a Single Bench on October 13, 2021, is dated January 20, 1992. Such order was made by the Chairman invoking Sec. 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereafter "the Act ", for short). However, not only the Joint Registrar but also the Member (Administrative), who presided over the Single Bench on October 13, 2021 and passed the order impugned in this writ petition, seem to be utterly ignorant of the 1993 Rules which have been brought into force with effect from September 6, 1993. On or from such date, the order of the Chairman dated January 20, 1992 was required to be read in such manner so that it does not derogate from the statutory rules. Assignment of cases to be heard by a Division Bench or by a Single Bench having been ordained by Rule 154 of the 1993 Rules read with Appendix VII thereof, it is the statutory rules that would guide consideration of matters, either by a Division Bench or by a Single Bench. The order dated January 20, 1992 would have limited application to cases covered thereby, and cannot be read in a manner that it is inconsistent with the statutory rules.