UNION OF INDIA Vs. LAXMAN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure-2), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 590 of 2000 (Laxam Kumar Sharma vs. The Union of India and others), whereby the original application preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed, and the order of the authorities terminating the services of the original applicant has been restored. The learned Tribunal has allowed the original application on the ground that the authorities superior to the appointing authority is not conferred with the powers of review to recall the order of appointment.

(2.) While assailing the validity of the order of the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law is well-settled that every administrative authority has the requisite power of review to recall or modify its administrative orders. He submits in the same vein that powers of review with respect to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings have to be specifically conferred by statute. He next submits that an order suffering from excess of jurisdiction does not Per Se render the order bad in law, save exceptional circumstances. For example, where right of appeal would be adversely affected. He next submits that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in disposing of the matter on a preliminary issue. It was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal in such a situation to deal with the matter on merits also. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2002)9 SCC 453.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We do not wish to express ourselves finally in this matter in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that a vital question arose for the consideration before the Tribunal, which was not considered, and the original application has been disposed of on a preliminary issue. We feel very unhappy that the Tribunal declined to go into the merits and chose to dispose of the same on a preliminary issue. Law is well-settled by a long line of judgments that subject to exceptional circumstances, the court while disposing of the matter on a preliminary issue should also dispose of the matter on merits so that the superior court, if it disagrees with the court's decision on the preliminary issue, has the occasion to examine the matter on merits also. Had the Tribunal disposed of the matter on merits, this Court would have been in the position to examine the matter on merits if it disagreed with the views of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue(s), and would have obviated an order of remand for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. The folly on the part of the learned Tribunal compels us to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the preliminary question as well as on the merits of the matter. The Tribunal must review the position in law whether or not an order suffering from excess of jurisdiction is Per Se bad in law.