G S RATHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.

(2.) The expression "requiring the discovery and production of documents" would deem to include powers to ascertain in interrogatories. The very foundation of the contention raised before us, is that the order of the tribunal dated 14th August 2006, by which the application for discovery by interrogatories was dismissed, suffers from error of jurisdiction. The main emphasis is that the tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction, which is lawfully vested in it, within the ambit and scope of the above provisions.

(3.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared at the common Engineering Service Examination conducted by the UPSC on 23rd July 1987. He had completed the probation and confirmed as Group A office in the Western Railways. He was transferred on various occasions. According to the petitioner, some false, fabricated and mala fide remarks were recorded in the confidential record with the prime object of denying promotion to him. The petitioner first filed Original Application No. 411 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, for quashing and expunging the confidential remarks recorded for the year ending 31st March 1991, which was allowed vide order dated 12th January, 1993. Then again, the petitioner filed another Original Application No. 203 of 1997, which was disposed of with a direction that the case of the petitioner be considered for promotion. Thereafter the petitioner filed yet another Original Application No. 486 of 2001 wherein he had prayed for setting aside and quashing of the punishment order dated 26th July 1997 and the chargesheet dated 10th January 1995. On the basis of these pending proceedings, the petitioner was denied promotion as on 9th June 2005. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner on 14th February 2006 filed misc. petition in O.A. No. 575 of 2001 (Exhibit I to the petition) for certain interrogatories and requiring the respondents to answer them. The respondents claimed privilege. The tribunal vide its order dated 14th August 2006 directed that the question of privilege would be considered with the main application. However, the request of the petitioner for answering the interrogatories was rejected. The tribunal in its said order held as under: