(1.) Puran Singh, who pleads his own cause, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to frame and notify Rules and procedure for investigation of misbehaviour or incapacity of the Chairman, Vice Chairman or other Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) under Section 9(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 .
(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was punished by the CAT under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on September 2, 1998. The punishment was, however, suspended for one month. Petitioner pleads that inasmuch as his conviction in the contempt matter was illegal, Section 17 of the Act having been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court, he had intention to move the Supreme Court under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said Act but inasmuch as the Central Government has so far not regulated the procedure for removal of a Chairman, Vice Chairman or other members, he was unable to make a complaint against the Members of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court. Through present petition filed by him he seeks a direction to be issued to make rules as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act aforesaid. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act reads thus :-
(3.) Petitioner could move the Supreme Court only if he was in a position to establish misbehaviour or incapacity of the members of CAT. No such allegations can even remotely be made against the members of the CAT for the simple reason that petitioner has been convicted for contempt. Inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot move the Supreme Court for removal of the Members of the CAT on the only ground that he has been convicted for contempt, it is not necessary even to enquire as to whether the Central Government has made rules to regulate the procedure for the investigation of misbehaviour or incapacity of the Chairman etc. or not.