If There Is Difference Between CAT Judicial Member & Administrative Member, Refer To 3rd Member; Reference To Full Bench Not Required : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a reference to Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal is not required if there in a case of difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal.

In such a situation, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman who has to give his own decision upon such a reference, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

In this case, petitions challenging the promotion of some persons as Inspectors (Armed) in the J&K Police were referred to full bench of the Tribunal following a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member on the one hand and the Administrative Member on the other. The Full bench dismissed the applications. 

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal (Full bench) observing that the entire procedure adopted post the minor difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal was contrary to the procedure prescribed by law. The High Court referred to Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 and observed that the Chairman had to decide the issue on a point of difference referred to it by the members or he could have also directed the decision upon such a reference by one or more than other members of the Tribunal on the point so referred.

Upholding this view taken by the High Court, the bench comprising Justices while dismissing the appeal observed:

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As rightly observed, once there was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter was required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a  reference. However, the matter was not required to be referred to the Full Bench. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

Case details

Daljit Singh vs Arvind Samyal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364 | SLP(C) 5192-5194/2022 | 1 April 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Headnotes

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 ; Section 26 - Once there is a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a reference. However, the matter is not required to be referred to the Full Bench.  

Summary - Appeal against Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment setting aside the Full bench judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal - Dismissed - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Click here to Read/Download Order