Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

c).     In    regard     to    the     reliance     of    this     Bench
in    OANo.193/2011         on    the     decision     in     OA      No.

755/2000 and certain other decisions these have been discussed at length in these orders. In this connection, please refer page 29 of the orders wherein the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aspect of judicial discipline has been considered. It is plain that High Courts including this Tribunal cannot ignore the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court without any tangible reason. The Hon'ble Apex Court found that various Benches had either ignored or by passed the ratio of the judgments and therefore, reiterated the rule judicial discipline. In the present case, once distinguish the present set applicants by having discovered the true facts of their being back-door entry, the relevance of OANo.193/2011 vanishes. Even we attribute the same facts and circumstances to the applicants in OA No. 193/2011, it would then follow that the orders in that OA ignored two major rulings the Hon'ble Apex Court in a) Umadevi b) Aghore Nath Dey (page 45) the latter had distinguished and clarified the judgment in Official Liquidator supra. If this Bench is compelled to follow OA No. 193/2011, we would be falling into the vice of disobeying the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex court in the above two judgments. This is perhaps a graver alternative. The fact that there is no ambiguity in the ACP Act as had been found in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar as discussed in Pages 89-

4. Judicial Discipline:

The reliance of the orders of this Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao passed by this bench of the Tribunal and which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.1202/2012, as also decisions of coordinate benches required adherence to the principles of judicial discipline, especially since the applicants in all the cases are similarly placed. The determination between conflicting views on this point of difference would also lead to a determination of the character of the precedents as being ' in rem' or ' in personam' and impact thereof on the aspect of limitation.

and 163 other connected OAs.

23. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sub Inspector Rooplal & Another vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Others reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) 213 has held in para 12 and 13 which reads as under:-

"12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus:

24. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 has ruled as under:-

"90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide as to which of the judgment lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.