Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi allowed a review application challenging its earlier order dated November 11, 2024, which had held that a Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not competent to decide an original application on merits. The Court recalled its previous order upon review and directed that the connected writ petition be listed for final hearing in the monthly list of April 2025.

The court held that "the original proceedings can be heard by a Single Member" if the subject matter falls within the scope of categories prescribed by notifications issued under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Division Bench concluded that its previous order failed to consider applicable rules and notifications, particularly the one dated September 10, 2021, which allows Single Member Benches to adjudicate cases involving minor penalties.

Also Read: “Qualifications Must Be Possessed by the Date Appointed in the Rules or the Advertisement”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Order, Upholds Eligibility of D.El.Ed. Candidates

The review applicant, the Deputy Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, sought review of the judgment passed in WPCT 221 of 2024. The applicant contended that the order under review erroneously curtailed the powers of the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, to assign matters to Single Members for adjudication.

The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the review applicant relied on multiple statutory provisions and judicial precedents. He referred to Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 18(c) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. He argued that an Administrative Member sitting singly could adjudicate on original applications, especially those involving minor penalties, if authorised by the Chairman.

Citing Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, the review applicant argued that "an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason."

Opposing the review, the writ petitioner, represented by Mr. Atarup Banerjee, had earlier contended that an Administrative Member lacked jurisdiction to hear such matters singly. However, the Railway Authorities supported the review applicant's position.

The original disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the private respondent (writ petitioner) by the railway authorities through two chargesheets dated September 26, 2013, and February 17, 2014. The proceedings concluded with a minor penalty of recovery amounting to Rs. 22,49,780.65. The private respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 350 of 2022 seeking to quash the disciplinary proceedings and obtain consequential reliefs.

The original order in WPCT 221 of 2024 was passed based on the finding that a Single Member Bench consisting of an Administrative Member lacked the authority to adjudicate the matter. The current review application sought to revisit this position.

The court examined the scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and associated rules in depth. Section 5(6) of the Act was pivotal, allowing the Chairman to authorise any Member to function as a Single Member Bench and exercise jurisdiction over specified classes of cases.

The court observed that "Section 5(6) has not distinguished between a Judicial or an Administrative Member. It has used the word 'Member' while delineating the powers of the Chairman of the Tribunal to assign matters."

Rule 18(c) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 further supports the Chairman's authority to designate certain categories of cases to be dealt with by Single Member Benches. Appendix-I of the Rules, updated by a notification dated September 10, 2021, specifically included "cases relating to minor penalties" within such permissible categories.

The court acknowledged its earlier oversight, stating, "We did not take into consideration such aspects of the matter while we had passed the order under review dated November 11, 2024."

Regarding the interpretation of judicial precedents, the court distinguished its facts from those in B.R. Thakare and Others and two prior coordinate Bench decisions from 2011. It recorded, "There is every possibility of those two cases falling within the exceptions noted in paragraph 98 of L. Chandra Kumar (supra)." Thus, the earlier view was not binding in the specific factual context of the present matter.

The court laid down a two-pronged test to evaluate such cases:

• Whether the nature of the case falls within any notification issued by the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal exercising powers under Section 5 (6) of the Act of 1985 or not; and if so,

• Whether such original application involves interpretation of a statutory provision or rule in relation to the Constitution or not.

Also Read: "J&K HC: Officers Cannot Claim Seniority from Vacancies in Previous Years, Only Actual Promotion Date Counts; Rule 15(4) of 2008 Rules Struck Down"

In this case, the first condition was satisfied due to the September 10, 2021 notification. The second was not applicable, as the original application did not involve constitutional interpretation. Therefore, the court held, "the original application could be heard by the Single Member of a Central Administrative Tribunal."

Based on its findings, the court recalled the earlier order, stating:

"On the strength of the ratio of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) we review our order dated November 11, 2024. On review, we recall such order."

It further directed that:

"We direct the Department to place W.P.C.T 221 of 2024 for the final hearing in the monthly list of April, 2025."

The review application, RVW 376 of 2024, along with all connected applications, was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Review Applicants: Mr. Asok Kumar Chakraborty, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. D.N. Ray, Senior Advocate; Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, AdvocateFor the Writ Petitioner: Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Advocate, Mrs. Sarda Sha, Advocate

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri Bachan Pandey

Case Number: RVW 376 of 2024; IA NO: CAN 3 of 2024; In W.P.C.T 221 of 2024

Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

[Read/Download order]