Madras High Court
The Registrar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 23 August, 2012
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23-8-2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.21786 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012 The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. . . Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, rep.by the Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Director General of Police, State of Tamilnadu, Chennai 600 004. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Pudupet, Chennai- 600 002. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Home Guard-North, I/c.Armed Reserve-III, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. . . Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned proceedings of the 5th respondent in O.M.No.873/Sec.-I(2)/2012-1, dated 6.7.2012 and the letter dated 10.7.2012 of the fifth respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to provide adequate security to the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench without any further reviews. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravindran, Sr.Counsel, for Mr.C.V.Ramachandramoorthy For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.V.Jayaprakashnarayanan, Special Government Pleader O R D E R
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order of the 5th respondent dated 10.7.2012 withdrawing the two Personal Security Officers and four Armed Guards, provided for B.Venkateswara Rao, Member of the CAT, with immediate effect and withdrawing two Personal Security Officers already provided for G.Shantappa, Judicial Member and HOD, CAT and for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to provide adequate security to the members of the CAT without any further review.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(a) Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench was constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under the control of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. It is discharging its functions in deciding cases of Central Government Employees and according to the petitioner, the conditions of service of its members are as per the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) act, 1954. The members of the Tribunal are to be provided with facilities on par with the High Court Judges and accordingly they were provided with security, except escort arrangements.
(b) It is averred in the affidavit that Sri.B.V.Rao, presently sitting in the Madras Bench, was on tour in the year 2008 to the Circuit Bench in Ranchi and ran into deep trouble there. The incident was reported in all the newspapers and in some electronic media. The said incident was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a letter, which was treated as a criminal writ petition by the Supreme Court and numbered as W.P.(Crl)No.23 of 2008.
(c) The said case was placed before the three Judge Bench of the Honourable supreme Court and notice was issued to the Union of India and all other necessary parties. Sri.V.V.Lalit, Senior Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. After hearing all the parties, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the state authorities to provide conducive atmosphere for dispensation of justice by providing adequate security to all the Members of the CAT within eight weeks from 25.8.2009. the said Judgment of the supreme Court is reported in (2009) 8 SCC 252 (In Re v. Union of India).
(d) The Central Government, considering the said judgment of the Supreme Court through its letter dated 21.10.2009, requested the State of Tamil Nadu to issue necessary instructions to all the authorities/persons concerned, to provide adequate security to all the Members of CAT. The second respondent thereafter requested the petitioner to communicate the requirements of security to all the Members by letter dated 27.11.2009. The views of all the Members were ascertained and the same was communicated by the Registrar of CAT. The second respondent by letter dated 23.2.2010 directed the third respondent to provide adequate security arrangements to all the Members of the CAT, Madras Bench as per the request of the petitioner. In the middle of 2010 security arrangements were provided to the Members by the respondents.
(e) On 22.2.2012, the 4th respondent withdrew the security arrangements, citing the recommendation of the Security Review Committee decision dated 20.2.2012 and according to the petitioner, security was given for just four months in terms of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court. Again on 10.7.2012, relying upon another memo of the third respondent dated 6.7.2012, the 5th respondent withdrew the security arrangements to two of the Judicial Members.
(f) The said orders are challenged in this writ petition by contending that the order of the 4th respondent is contrary to the order of the Honourable Supreme Court; that the State having given security to the District Judges of the State Judiciary, the Members of the CAT mostly being retired Judges of the High Courts, their conditions of service is same as applicable to the Judges of the High Court as per Section 8(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985; that the representation submitted by the petitioner after the impugned order was not considered and the petitioner being a Judicial Wing, without invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, has filed this writ petition and in all other states security is provided to the CAT Members; and that, the action of the respondent in withdrawing the security already provided is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
3. The writ petition was posted for admission on 10.8.2012. The learned Additional Government Pleader took notice on behalf of all respondents and he was directed to get specific instructions as to whether the respondents are still justifying the impugned orders dated 10.7.2012 i.e., withdrawal of Personal Security Officers and Armed Guards provided to the Members of CAT. On 13.8.2012, the learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents and prayed for further time to get instructions. Hence the case was adjourned to 16.8.2012. On 16.8.2012, the learned Additional Advocate General produced before the Court, the decision taken in the Security Review Committee Meeting held on 14.8.2012, which reads as follows:
Sl.No. Name of the VIP Orders of the Special SRC
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tr.B.Venkateswara Rao, Member (J) (CAT), Madras Bench Tr.G.Shanthappa, Member (J) & HOD, CAT Smt.O.P.Sosamma, CAT Member Shri R.Satapathy, CAT Member The Committee took note of the fact that guards and PSOs are being provided to Tr.B.Venkateswara Rao. The PSOs alone are being provided to Tr.G.Santhappa.
In view of the security arrangemnets provided being considered adequate and in view of the WP engaging the attention of the High Court, the existing arrangements may continue for Tr.B.Venkateswara Rao and Tr.G.Santhappa.
There are different provisions of security personnel for CAT members at present.
Hence for other two Members who have no security provision at present, PSOs will be provided as is being done for Tvl.G.Shanthappa. The Committee will finalise a normative assessment of adequate security at the next meeting.
4. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State/respondents are bound to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above and the respondents are not expected to take any decision in violation of the order of the Supreme Court, which is binding on the respondents and all other State Governments. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the decision dated 14.8.2012, the respondents decided to keep the matter pending stating that the Committee will finalise a normative assessment of adequate security at the next meeting, and the said stand of the respondents cannot at all be appreciated as the same has given an impression that the Members of the CAT are at the mercy of the State Government for getting security arrangements. Therefore the impugned orders are to be set aside as the same are violating the order of the Supreme Court cited supra.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, relying on the minutes of the Security Review Committee dated 14.8.2012 submitted that the respondents will definitely bear-in-mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while finalising the security to be provided to the Members of CAT at the next meeting and prayed for disposal of the writ petition by recording the said minutes.
6. This Court posed a specific question to the learned Additional Advocate General as to whether the impugned order can be treated as withdrawn in the light of the decision taken in the meeting held on 14.8.2012. The learned Additional Advocate General was not in a position to take any stand and submitted that appropriate decision will be taken in the next meeting. As the impugned orders are not withdrawn, this court is bound to consider as to whether the impugned orders dated 10.7.2012 are valid or not.
7. The CAT, Madras Bench was constituted under the provisions of Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. There are two types of Members in the CAT, viz., Judicial Members and Administrative Members. The qualifications prescribed for appointment of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Members are stated in section 6. For appointment as Chairman, one should have been a Judge of the High Court. One should be a Judge or has been a Judge of the High Court and he must have served as Vice-Chairman, at least for two years. A Judicial Member should be qualified to be a Judge of the High Court or he, for at least two years, should have acted as Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or in the Legislative Department including Member-Secretary, Law Commission of India or held the post of Additional Secretary to Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislative Department at least for a period of five years. The Chairman and every other Member of the CAT shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, by the President of India. For appointment as Administrative Member, one must have held, for at least two years, the post of Secretary to Government of India or any other post under Central or State Government and carrying the scale of pay, which is not less than the Secretary to the Government of India for at least two years or held the post of Additional Secretary to Government of India for at least five years or any other post under the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay, which is not less than that of Additional Secretary to Government of India at least for five years. Only exception is, Officers belonging to All India Services who are on Central deputation to a lower post shall be deemed to have held the post of Secretary or Additional Secretary, as the case may be, from the date of such Officers were granted proforma promotion or actual promotion, whichever is earlier to the level of Secretary or Additional Secretary, as the case may be, and the period spent on central deputation after such date shall count for qualifying service.
8. The Chairman and Members of the Tribunal are appointed for a term. The jurisdiction, power and authority of the CAT are mentioned in Section 14 including recruitment, matters concerning recruitment to All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or Civil Post under the Union or to the post connected with the defence or in the defence service, being, in either case, post filled by a civilian and all service matters concerning such class of persons in employment and to such of those persons the central Government may direct by notification. The procedures to be followed by the Tribunals are mentioned in Section 22 and shall have the power vested in a Civil Court under CPC. Proceedings before the Tribunal to be Judicial Proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the IPC, as per Section 30. Their actions are protected under section 32. Thus, it is evident that the Administrative Tribunal Chairman, Vice-Chairman and all its Members are performing judicial functions of the State.
9. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 (L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India) considered the power of judicial review available against the Administrative Tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunals will continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. The litigants therefore cannot approach the High Court even in cases where they question the vires of the statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned. In effect, the Tribunals are to be approached first by all litigants and against the decision of the Tribunals, writ petition can be filed before the High Court and the said writ petitions are to be heard only by the Division Bench of the High Court and thereafter only SLP can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
10. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the Administrative Tribunals are performing Judicial functions at the first instance in resolving disputes regarding appointment, promotion, disciplinary action, etc., of the Central Government Employees and Public Sector Undertakings, for which special notifications are issued from time to time. The service disputes, right from the basic servants upto IAS, IPC, IFS, IRS Officers, will definitely come first before the CAT and then only before the High Court and then to Supreme Court. The said Judicial and Administrative Members of the Tribunals are therefore discharging judicial functions and there is no controversy in that respect.
11. Insofar as the security aspect of the Administrative Tribunal Members are concerned, the issue was already dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court in a suo-motu writ petition in the decision reported in (2009) 8 SCC 252 (In Re v. Union of India). In the opening paragraph of the Judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"This case is an eye-opener as it reveals that those who have been assigned the solemn duty to dispense justice are facing criminal intimidation at the hands of the authorities which have the responsibility to maintain the law and order."
In the said judgment after narrating the facts of the case, the Supreme Court gave a positive direction to the Union of India and to all the State Governments to provide adequate security to all the Members of the CAT within a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment, which was rendered on 25.8.2009.
12. Pursuant to the said decisions, the Government of India issued a direction to all the State Governments and Union Territories to provide adequate security to all the Members of the CAT immediately by its order dated 21.10.2009. The CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, through its circular dated 10.11.2009 also requested the state Governments and Union Territories to provide adequate security to all the Members of the CAT immediately as per the local threat perception for them. The second respondent herein by letter dated 27.11.2009 requested the petitioner to communicate the bandobust to be provided at the official function places attended by them. Petitioner herein, by representation dated 12.10.2011 requested the third respondent to provide security personnel at the office and residence of the Judicial Members as per the order of the Supreme Court. The third respondent on 22.2.2012 passed an order to withdraw the security provided to the Judicial member, Madras Bench by stating that the Security Review Committee resolved to withdraw the security already provided. Thereafter the impugned orders were passed totally withdrawing the Personal Security Officers and Armed guards. Both the Judicial Members jointly addressed a representation to the first respondent on 10.7.2012 requesting to take immediate action to withdraw the memo dated 6.7.2012. The said request addressed to the first respondent reads as follows:
" CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH File No.D.32021/1/2009 Admn 10.7.2012 To The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.
Sub : Security Arrangements for Hon'ble Members of Central Administrative Tribunal , - reg.
Sir, As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.23/2008, dated 25.8.2009, security personnel were provided to Hon'ble Members of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In the month of February, 2012, the Government of Tamil Nadu had ordered withdrawing of Security personnel. However, the same was restored after letter of even number dated 22.2.2012 was written by me to you and to various other heads of State Government and Central Government departments.
Today morning, by letter No.'nil' dated 10.7.2012, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve III, it has been brought to our notice that consequent to a decision taken in the Security Review Committee meeting held on 13.6.2012, the Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai has initiated action to withdraw the security personnel provided to members of CAT.
In my earlier letter written in the month of February, 2012, I have highlighted the background for providing security personnel to the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal and had also requested that the security personnel should be allowed to continue as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
I once again reiterate that since arrangement of providing security personnel to the Members of Central Administrative Tribunal had been ordered by the Central Government/State Government in obeisance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there appears to be no reason as to why the same should be discontinued, or reviewed along with other routine reviews made by the State Government with regard to the security provided to various other VVIPs/VIPs etc. Letter dated 10.7.2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Home Guard North Pudupet, Chennai 600 002, in pursuance of memo No.873/Sec.-I (2)/2012-1, dated 6.7.2012 of Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, amounts to contempt of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.23/2008, dated 25.8.2009.
Hence, you may direct the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai to withdraw the memo No.873/Sec.-I (2)/2012-1, dated 6.7.2012 and direct him to continue the security arrangement provided to the Hon'ble Members of this Tribunal. If the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai fails to withdraw the memo No.873/Sec.-I (2)/2012-1, dated 6.7.2012, we are constrained to file Contempt Petition against the State Government of Tamil Nadu in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Yours faithfully, Sd/- xxxxxx (G.Shanthappa) Judicial Member/HOD Sd/- xxxxxxx (B.Venkateswara Rao) Judicial Member Copy for kind information to The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009."
Thus, it is evident that the CAT Members are in need of security and demanded the respondents to withdraw the impugned orders and continue to provide security in terms of the order of the supreme Court. Still the respondents have not taken any steps to withdraw the impugned orders.
13. The persons performing judicial functions are expected to discharge their duties without fear or favour. The security problem faced by one of the Judicial Member was noticed by the Supreme Court and suo-motu proceeding was initiated and directions were issued. The said judgment nowhere granted liberty to the concerned State authorities to review the security provided to the CAT members. So long as the said judgment is not reviewed or modified by the Honourable Supreme Court, and since the Members of the CAT are requesting to provide security to them, the respondents are not entitled to withdraw the security already provided to them as per the order of the Supreme Court.
14. The action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders and the reluctance on the part of the Security Review Committee to restore the security in its full form amounts to violation of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court. Their action is belittling the status of the CAT Members. Even after specific request made by the Judicial Members jointly on 10.7.2012, the respondents are not willing to withdraw the memo dated 6.7.2012. The decision taken on 14.8.2012 by the Security Review Committee is only an interim decision and it gives an impression that the Judicial Members are at the mercy of the respondents for getting continuous security.
15. Such kind of attitude is not expected from the responsible Police Officers. Their decision not to extend the security to CAT Members permanently, in spite of their specific request, is highly deplorable. In our democratic country, even an ordinary citizen is entitled to seek police protection, if there is security threat. The respondents failed to bear-in-mind their solemn duty while taking the decision on 11.2.2012, 6.7.2012, 10.7.2012 and on 14.8.2012. This court expresses its displeasure about the conduct of the top Police Officials in treating the CAT Members with disrespect and forcing them to knock the doors of this Court for getting security, while discharging their judicial functions, in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra and specific request made by the CAT Members on 10.7.2012. The petitioner may be justified in moving the Supreme Court against the respondents for violation of the order of the Supreme Court, but their action in approaching this Court for appropriate relief establishes the magnanimity on the part of the Members of the CAT. Inviting this kind of litigation is least expected from the respondents, who are the Law Enforcing Agency of the State Government.
16. Considering all the above facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 252 (In Re v. Union of India), the impugned orders are set aside and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to continuously provide adequate security to the Members of the CAT, Madras Bench, as long as they require.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No. 23-8-2012
vr
To
1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
State of Tamilnadu, Chennai 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Armed Reserve, Pudupet, Chennai- 600 002.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Home Guard-North, I/c.Armed Reserve-III,
Pudupet, Chennai 600 002.
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
Vr
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.21786 of 2012
23-8-2012