Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Union Of India Thro General Manager & 6 vs Satendra Ramjor Oza & 3 on 9 July, 2015

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri, G.B.Shah

         C/SCA/2606/2013                                JUDGMENT




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2606 of 2013




FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI


and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
============================================================
====
1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
    to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
      the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of
      law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
      India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
      UNION OF INDIA THRO GENERAL MANAGER & 6....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
             SATENDRA RAMJOR OZA & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 7
MR DILIP L KANOJIYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4
================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH

                            Date : 09/07/2015


                                 Page 1 of 5
          C/SCA/2606/2013                                         JUDGMENT



                               ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)

1. By   way   of   this   petition,   the   petitioners­original  respondents No. 1 to 7,   have challenged the order dated 23.10.2010  passed   by   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad,   in  Original   Application   No.118   of   2007,   whereby   the   Tribunal   has  allowed the said Original Application filed by the present respondent  No.1­original applicant.  

2. The   facts   of   this   case   are   that   the   respondent   No.1­ original applicant is working as Technician (Grade­III) in Loco Shed,  Valsad.   On   26.11.2005   respondent   No.1   made   a   complaint   to  petitioner No.5 herein about the fake ITI certificate produced by the  respondent Nos. 2 & 3­original respondents No. 8 & 9.  On 5.8.2006,  the   Chief   Vigilance   Inspector  along   with  other   officials  visited   the  residence of respondent No.1 herein and inquired into the matter. On  14.08.2006, the respondent No.1 herein was placed under suspension.  Thereafter, the respondent No.1 made representation to the Director,  CBI regarding alleged fraud committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and  3­original respondents No. 8 & 9. On 09.01.2007, the suspension order  of respondent No.1 was revoked and was transferred from Mumbai  Division to Ratlam Division.

2.1. Being   aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   transfer   order,   the  Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/2606/2013 JUDGMENT respondent No.1 herein filed O.A. No.118 of 2007 before the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal vide order dated  23.10.2010 allowed the said Original application and quashed and set  aside the transfer order passed by the petitioner. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners­original respondents  No.1   to   7   has   submitted   that   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the  Tribunal deserves to quashed and set aside since the impugned order  is passed by a Single Member of the Tribunal.

3.1. In support of his contention,  the learned advocate for the  petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case  of  Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India, reported in 1990 (16)  ALR, 487 = (1991)  1 SCC 181 and the decision of this Court passed in  Special Civil Application No.11714 of 2000 dated 24.07.2013.

4. Learned   advocate   for   the   respondent   No1   is   not   in   a  position   to   controvert   the   decisions   relied   upon   by   the   learned  advocate for the petitioners. 

5. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and  perused the material on record. The issue involved in this petition has  already   been   decided   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Amulya   Chandra Kalita (supra), wherein it has been observed that every  Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/2606/2013 JUDGMENT bench   of   the   Tribunal   must   consist   of   a   judicial   member   and   an  Administrative Member. Therefore, the Administrative member alone  could not have heard and decide the matter.

6. Even, the coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding  the   Special   Civil   Application   No.11714   of   2006   on   24.07.2013   has  observed as under:­ "Both orders have been passed by the single administrative  Member   of   the   Tribunal.   The   controversy   whether   single  Member can decide the matter or not ?. The similar question  has been decided by the Apex Court in case of State of M.P.  vs. B.R.Thakare and Ors in (2002) 10 SCC 338 and held that  the   case   involved   question   of   law   and   its   interpretation  should be assigned to Division Bench of one of the Member  should be a Judicial Member. In para 3 of this Judgment the  Apex Court has held as under:

"3.  Even   assuming  that   all  the  powers  of  the   Tribunal   could   be   exercised   by   any   Single   Member, it can only be by a judicial Member of   the Tribunal and not any other member under   the aforesaid order."

From   the   aforesaid   decision   of   the   Apex   Court,   it   is  clear   that   since   question   of   law   and   interpretation   is  involved, the single Member of the Tribunal can not hear and  decide the OA and subsequently since he was administrative  Member, he has no jurisdiction to decide the matter singly as  only   Judicial   Member   in   some   of   the   cases   can   decide   the  matter singly.

For   the   aforesaid   reasons   the   order   passed   by   the  Tribunal in OA no. 193/2004 on 31/8/2005 as well as order  Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/2606/2013 JUDGMENT passed in Review Application being R.A. no. 52/2005 dated  14/10/2005 cannot be maintained."

7. Considering   the   facts   of   the   present   case   as   also   the  principle   laid   down   in   the   above   referred   cases,   we   are   of   the  considered opinion that a Single Member of the Tribunal cannot hear  and decide the Original application. Therefore, the impugned order  passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 

8. For   the   foregoing   reasons,   the   present   petition   stands  allowed.   Accordingly, the impugned order  dated 23.10.2010 passed  by   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad,   in   Original  Application   No.118   of   2007   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   The  matter   is   remanded   to   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,  Ahmedabad   for   deciding   the   same   on   merits   by   a   bench   properly  constituted under the law.  It is, however, clarified that this Court has  not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (G.B.SHAH, J.) pawan Page 5 of 5