Central Administrative Tribunal Is A Substitute For Civil Court While Adjudicating Service Dispute: Allahabad High Court
Recently, the Allahabad High Court observed that Central Administrative Tribunals are substitutes to Civil Courts as the jurisdiction earlier vested in Civil Courts was transferred to Tribunals who have the same powers and procedures as that prescribed for the Civil Court.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,
“Prior to constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Act, 1985, the remedy was before the Civil Court, and therefore, an alternative forum has been provided under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. It can take evidence, evaluate it and record findings of fact.”
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in a Transfer Application filed by the petitioner.
The Court had raised certain queries to the counsels. Upon final hearing, the Court held that questions regarding evidence to establish preponderance of probability, allegations made against the accused and other factual questions can be decided by the Tribunal itself in disciplinary proceedings under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
It was held that the Act of 1985 was brought in force to ensure that the employees of Central and State Government have a forum for speedy and effective adjudication regarding disputes relating to their service and service conditions.
The Court held that the Tribunals do not have the same powers of judicial review under the 1985 Act as the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. it was held that even though the CPC does not bound the Tribunals, similar procedure has been laid down in the Act to be followed by the Tribunals, thereby giving them powers akin to the Civil Court.
“The very vesting of such powers of summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring discovery and production of documents; receiving evidence on affidavits; requisitioning any public record or document, or copy of such record or document from any office subject to the provisions mentioned therein; issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents, as are exercised by a Civil Court while trying a suit, which is a court of first instance, it is evident, that the Tribunal while adjudicating a service dispute is empowered to enter into questions of fact, and decide factual issues based on evidence, as is done by the Civil Court, even though not bound by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”
The Court held that the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution do not have such powers of evidence, fact finding authority and only deal with summary proceedings.
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, the Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal was summary in nature, as if passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that even though the Apex Court had held that Tribunals exercise powers similar to that of High Court, it does not take away the responsibility to act as the Court of first instance.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Tribunal to rehear the Transfer Application.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Gupta v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Chemical And Fertilizer Deptt. Chemical Petro Chemical And Ors [WRIT - A No. - 3089 of 2024]
Counsel for Petitioner : Utsav Mishra, Gaurav Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent : Anurag Srivastava, Raj Kumar Singh