Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rajakumar B L vs Department Of Posts on 5 March, 2026
1
MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.170/00091/2026
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/000613/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 02.03.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 05.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Rajakumar B.L.,
S/o Basavaraj Laddigatti,
Aged 49 years, working as
LSG Postal Assistant,
Manasagangothri Sub Post Office,
Mysuru- 570 006 ......Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri A.R. Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
By Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Room No. 402-D
Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi- 110 011
3. Chief Postmaster General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bengaluru- 560 001
4. Postmaster General,
S.K. Region, 2nd Floor,
GPO Building, Bengaluru- 560 001
KOMAL RANI
KOMA CAT Bangalore
2026.03.09
L RANI16:45:07
+05'30'
2
MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mysuru Division,
Mysuru- 570 020 .....Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S. Sugumaran)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
1. This MA No. 170/91/2026 have been filed by the Counsel for applicant for recalling the Order dated 05.02.2026 under Section 22(3) F of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 stating as follows:
1. When the case was called an adjournment was sought on personal inconvenience of the advocate. To the best of the knowledge of the advocate, the learned member granted the adjournment, though an issue was raised on the competency of the learned single judge to decide the case in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a writ petition. Presuming that the case was adjourned, the advocate for applicant left the meeting hall (through video conference).
2. Thereafter, the advocate for applicant was surprised to note in the evening of the same day, while verifying the date of posting of the case, that the case has been dismissed for default/non prosecution. A copy of the order passed by the learned single member is produced herewith as Annexure-MAIL The veracity of the facts as recorded, do not reflect the true events happened on that day leading to filing of the present MA. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the applicant and his advocate after he left the scene. The further proceedings are not known to the applicant or his advocate. The advocate for applicant submits that he does not agree with the statements made in the order contrary to what is stated above.
3. It is true that the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka holding that the case cannot be heard by a single Administrative Member, was brought to the notice of the learned single member on that day. However, the Learned Single Member brushed aside the same with the remarks "the counsel for KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 3 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE applicant states that there is a certain judgment of the High Court of Karnataka which states that the Single Member Bench presided by an Administrative Member cannot hear the case". The Learned Single Member did not direct the undersigned to produce the relevant order of the High Court nor had any inclination to go through the same However, a copy of the said order of the High Court of Karnataka is produced herewith as Annexure MA-2.
4. It is submitted that in the impugned order, it is stated that "The Chairman, Principal Bench after detailed consideration of the matter has clearly communicated that a Single Member Bench headed by an Administrative Member can preside over the Court, hear the cases and also deliver judgments. The Chairman, Principal Bench in its communication vide No.PB/13/01/2011-JA (Vol-1) (Pt) dated 04.12.2025 has, while citing the judgments of the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India and State of M.P. Vs B.R.Thakare and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in RVW No.376/20024, IA No. CAN 3/2024 in WPCT No.221/2024 titled Union of India & Others Vs Bachan Pandey has categorically stated that an Original Application can be heard by a Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal in pursuante of the notification dated 10.09.2021 read with 18.09.2016, exercising powers under Section 5(6) of the Act, 1985".
5. It is submitted that the contents of the communication dated 04.12.2025 were not made known to the applicant or his advocate.
The advocate for the applicant is not aware as to whether the said communication is a private communication made with the Learned Single Member or otherwise. The binding nature of such a communication cannot be examined, unless it is a public document. The Learned Single Member, keeping the applicant and his advocate in dark of the facts, without disclosing the contents of the communication and the context in which the same were made, passed the impugned order. This has seriously prejudiced the case of the applicant as it could not be examined as to whether it overrides the order produced at Annexure-MA2 or otherwise. A copy of such an important communication dated 04.12.2025 has not even been notified in the notice board of the tribunal nor a copy of it has been furnished to the concerned If a copy of the said communication was made available to the applicant or his advocate, then the Learned Single Member would have had the KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 4 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE benefit of full facts to arrive at just conclusions in accordance with law,
6. With regard to the merits of the present case, the case has been dismissed without considering the legal pleas raised in the O.A. resulting in an error apparent on face of the record. The main issue in the O.A. is claim for medical reimbursement for the son of the applicant. Without examining the prayer of the applicant and the grounds urged in the O.A., the Learned Single Member dismissed the O.A. on extraneous considerations contrary to law. The main issue has been sidetracked discussing unnecessary issues and unpleasant events, which could have been avoided."
2. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent on being specifically asked regarding the veracity of the above observations of the Counsel for the applicant has rejected the same. He categorically confirms that the Order in OA No. 613/2024 dated 05.02.2026 was passed in the open court and the Counsel for the Respondent was very much present through video conference throughout the Court proceedings.
3. The relevant portions of the Order dated 05.02.2026 are reproduced for quick reference as follows:
"The counsel for applicant states that there is a certain judgment of the High Court of Karnataka which states that the Single Member Bench presided by an Administrative Member cannot hear the case.
Learned counsel for the applicant is duly informed that this particular issue which was also raised a few weeks back in this Court was communicated to the Chairman, Principal Bench for examination. The Chairman, Principal Bench after detailed consideration of the matter has clearly communicated that a Single Member Bench headed by an Administrative Member can preside over the Court, hear the cases and also deliver judgments. The Chairman, Prinicpal Bench in its communication vide No. PB/13/01/2011-JA (Vol-1) (Pt) dated 04.12.2025 has, while citing KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 5 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and State of M.P. vs. B.R. Thakare and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in RVW No.376/2024, IA No. CAN 3/2024 in WPCT No. 221/2024 titled Union of India & others vs. Bachan Pandey has categorically stated that an Original Application can be heard by a Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal in pursuant of the notification dated 10.09.2021 read with 18.09.2016, exercising powers under Section 5(6) of the Act, 1985. Learned counsel for the applicant, despite being apprised of the directions of the Hon'ble Chairman of C.A.T, has refused to argue the case stating that he is not bound by the orders of Chairman but will comply with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
In my considered view, the orders of Chairman, Principal Bench are based on detailed consideration of the orders of the Apex Court and recent orders of the High Court of Calcutta. Despite being present, the refusal to advance arguments by the counsel for applicant is a failure to represent his interest and he is considered to be 'Not Present' in a legal sense. This is a Procedural Default and hence, in view of the refusal by the counsel for applicant to argue the case, the OA No. 613/2024 is dismissed in default / non-prosecution."
4. It is seen that the learned counsel for the applicant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his assertion that the order dated 05.02.2026 was passed in his absence or that he was granted any adjournment in this case. Furthermore, if he was relying upon any Judgement of the High Court of Karnataka, it was incumbent upon him to have produced the same for the perusal of the SMB on the date of the order i.e. 05.02.2026. Subsequently, a detailed Order was issued in which the case was dismissed in default for non prosecution, after delineating the sequence of events that occurred in the Court on 05.02.2026 (cited supra).
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 6 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the Registry of CAT, Bangalore Bench, has informed that Order No. PB/13/01/2011-JA(Vol-I) (Pt) dated 04.12.2025 issued by Chairman, CAT was put on the Notice Board of CAT, Bangalore Bench on 09.02.2026 and was also uploaded on the website of CAT, Bangalore Bench the same day. This fact contradicts the statement of the Learned Counsel for the applicant in Para 5 of the MA.
6. The Registry of Bangalore Bench of CAT has informed that this MA has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioner with the Registry on 19.02.2026 which is ten days after the above mentioned document i.e. letter of the Chairman, CAT was brought in public domain as indicated above.
Hence, there appears to be an attempt on the part of the learned Counsel for the applicant to mislead the Court, by stating that contents of the communication of the Chairman, CAT dated 04.12.2025 were not made known to him. This is unfortunate.
7. Regarding the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicant in the MA, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant extracts of the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Suger Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2002 AIR-SCW 4939= AIR 2003 SC 511) which is as follows:
"Statement of facts as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in judgement of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradicts such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgement, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record corrected.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 7 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this court to the contrary."
8. It is clear that the MA filed by the Learned Counsel for applicant is not based on the correct factual matrix. It is also not in consonance with the status and seniority of the Learned Counsel for Respondents. It is unbecoming of him to have made certain false observations in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The above mentioned contentions in the MA on the part of the learned Counsel for the applicant are inconsistent with performance of his professional duties. It is clear that he is suppressing material facts and he is also attempting to mislead the Court which amounts to professional misconduct. In this regard, it would be beneficial to draw upon certain Judgements of the Supreme Court which deal with frivolous or vexatious litigations/ abuse of the process of Law/ violation of procedural rules etc. The relevant portions of a few of these Judgements are indicated as below:
(a) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 (vide Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002) dated 03.12.2009 has held that:
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre- independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 8 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
2. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making the following observations: "It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked."
..........................
21. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 9 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.
22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We would have saddled the appellants with exemplary costs but, keeping in view the fact that possession of the surplus land was taken in 2002 and the same has been distributed among landless poor persons, we refrain from doing so."
(b) The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 (vide Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008) dated 09.07.2008 has held that:
".....................
24..... It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed the threshold without at considering the merits of the claim.
25. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486: 86 LJ KB 257: 116 LT 136 in the following words:
"[I]t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the not material facts- it says facts, law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it; the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 10 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement".
(emphasis supplied) .............
27. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, Viscount Reading, C.J. observed:
"Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to with the the the conclusion that affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means a misleading affidavit".
(emphasis supplied) .....................
46. In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the Writ Court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure.....
47. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs."
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 11 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
(c) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors (2011) 8 SCC 249 (vide Civil Appeal No. 4912- 4913 of 2011) dated 04.07.2011 has held that:
"..................
48........It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or ran Singh v. State of Punjab even pay heavy costs. In Swaran costs. In Swan (2000) 5 SCC 668 this court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts.
49. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.
50. Learned amicus articulated common man's general impression about litigation in following words:
"Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road."
This court in Swaran Singh (Supra) observed as under:
".....Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to clause
(b) of Section 340 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 12 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
51. In recent judgment in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this court has shown great concern about alarming proportion of perjury cases in our country.
52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials. ...... C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. ................"
9. In view of the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, it is expected that the learned Counsel for the applicant should bear in mind that first and foremost he is an officer of the Court and in that capacity he is expected to exercise due diligence in performance of his duties and maintain highest standards of professional conduct. It is clear that it has not been so in the light of the facts and circumstances cited above.
10. In view of the above, the MA is liable to be dismissed and cost have to be imposed on the learned Counsel for the applicant for wasting the time of the Court and misleading the Court by putting up a scurrilous and frivolous application and through false averments.
KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30' 13 MA No.170/00091/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
11. Hence, it is hereby ordered:
(a) The MA is dismissed.
(b) A cost of Rs. 5,000 is imposed on learned Counsel of the
applicant for the above misconduct to be deposited with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) within 15 working days of the date of receipt of order of this Court.
Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) MEMBER (A) kr KOMAL RANI KOMA CAT Bangalore 2026.03.09 L RANI16:45:07 +05'30'