Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared at the common Engineering Service Examination conducted by the UPSC on 23rd July 1987. He had completed the probation and confirmed as Group A office in the Western Railways. He was transferred on various occasions. According to the petitioner, some false, fabricated and mala fide remarks were recorded in the confidential record with the prime object of denying promotion to him. The petitioner first filed Original Application No. 411 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, for quashing and expunging the confidential remarks recorded for the year ending 31st March 1991, which was allowed vide order dated 12th January, 1993. Then again, the petitioner filed another Original Application No. 203 of 1997, which was disposed of with a direction that the case of the petitioner be considered for promotion. Thereafter the petitioner filed yet another Original Application No. 486 of 2001 wherein he had prayed for setting aside and quashing of the punishment order dated 26th July 1997 and the chargesheet dated 10th January 1995. On the basis of these pending proceedings, the petitioner was denied promotion as on 9th June 2005. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner on 14th February 2006 filed misc. petition in O.A. No. 575 of 2001 (Exhibit I to the petition) for certain interrogatories and requiring the respondents to answer them. The respondents claimed privilege. The tribunal vide its order dated 14th August 2006 directed that the question of privilege would be considered with the main application. However, the request of the petitioner for answering the interrogatories was rejected. The tribunal in its said order held as under:

4. According to Section 22(1), the tribunal established under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not bound by the procedure laid down in CPC. The section empowers to adopt such a procedure which is expedient in the interest of justice but in doing so the tribunal shall be guided by principles of natural justice. The tribunal has power to regulate its procedure subject to the other provisions of this Act.

5. Order XI of CPC deals with two types of discoveries - (i) Discovery by interrogatories and (ii) Discovery by documents. Section 22(3) only empowers discovery and production of documents though CPC deals with both types of Discoveries viz Discovery by interrogatories (Order 11, Rule 1 to 11) and Discovery by interrogatories (Order 11, Rule 12 to 14). Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not empower tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act to direct interrogatories to be answered by opposite party as given to Civil Courts under CPC. If the legislature intended the same provision might have been incorporated under Section 22(3). In the absence of any specific provision the power to direct any party to answer interrogatories cannot be inferred by necessary implication. A plain reading of Section 22(1) makes it amply clear that the tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act is not bound by the procedure laid down in CPC. It empowers the tribunal to adopt such procedure as it deems fit in the interest of justice but in doing so tribunal shall be guided b principles of natural justice. However, these powers are subject to the other provisions of the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant that direction to answer interrogatories can be issued by following principles of natural justice is misconceived inasmuch as power to issue direction in the absence of any provision under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act on the ground of following principles of natural justice.

6. There is a consistent decision of this Bench in the case of J.P. Shoke v. Union of India and Ors. while disposing of M.P. 609/2005 in O.A No. 34/2005 wherein the tribunal held that it has no power to direct respondents to answer interrogatories as there is no provision under the Administrative Tribunals Act for the same. This view was further reiterated in the case of Vinayak Purushotam Gowande v. Union of India and Ors. while disposing of M.P No. 238/2006 in O.A. No. 748/2004 and Mallinath Ramchandra Mhamane v. Union of India and Ors. in M.P. No. 239/2006 in O.A. No. 481/2004. These decisions of the co-ordinate Bench are directly on the point in issue and therefore we are bound to follow these directions.

5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, while referring to the provisions of Section 22(3) and Order XI of the of C.P.C. and while following its own orders passed in different cases, as referred to above (supra), recorded a finding that the tribunal had no power to direct the respondents to answer the interrogatories, as there was no specific provision in the Act. Along with the misc. petition praying for serving the schedule of interrogatories to be answered by the respondents, the petitioner had also enclosed the schedule containing as many as 20 questions. These questions related to certain facts and intended to discover certain legal evidence by requiring the respondents to answer them. For example, the questions were asked with regard to the specifications of quantitative and qualitative or financial targets provided for the year ending 1993. The questions were also directed towards finding out what was the evidence for recording of certain reports.