News Analysis India

Tag: Central Administrative Tribunal

  • All CAT benches equal, principal bench cannot be usurper of power: Uttarakhand High Court

    By PTI

    NAINITAL: All benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) are equal and its principal bench cannot be allowed to robe itself with a superior quality, the Uttarakhand High Court has said.

    The tribunal adjudicates service matters of central government employees.

    The high court also set aside the CAT principal bench order related to transfer of a plea being heard in its Nainital bench to Delhi, saying “the principal bench cannot be permitted to be usurper of power.”

    Hearing the plea filed by Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service Officer, the high court in its order said before a case is transferred from one bench to another, or from one court to another, certain criteria for transferring the case have to be kept in mind.

    Chaturvedi, who is posted in Haldwani, had in February last year filed an application with the tribunal’s bench here challenging the civil servants’ empanelment process.

    The Centre, in October 2020, had sought transfer of the case from the Nainital circuit bench to the tribunal’s principal bench in New Delhi, saying “since the decision with regard to a policy decision of the central government would have nationwide repercussions, therefore, only the principal bench is a suitable bench for deciding the validity of the policy decision” among other reasoning.

    The CAT’s principal bench through its order dated December 4, 2020 had allowed the Centre’s plea for transfer of the case to Delhi.

    Aggrieved over the tribunal’s order, Chaturvedi had moved the high court.

    The court is of the opinion that the reasoning contained in the CAT’s order dated “is legally unsustainable” and set aside it while allowing Chaturvedi’s petition, according to the order issued by Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice N S Dhanik, on October 23.

    Citing a Supreme Court verdict, the high court said a challenge to a policy decision can equally be invoked before any bench of the CAT.

    The high court noted that Chaturvedi’s case was transferred “ostensibly, on the ground that the matter of this nature would have their own impact on the very functioning of the central government.”

    In case Parliament in its wisdom were of the opinion that issues have nationwide repercussion, or having great impact on the functioning of the central government, should be consigned to the principal bench, then a necessary provision would have been enacted by Parliament, it said, referring to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

    “However, since Parliament has treated all the benches of the CAT as alike, even cases of nationwide repercussion, or having great impact on the functioning of the central government can, indeed, be decided by other benches of CAT. Such issues need not be relegated to the principal bench,” the order said.

    Since all the benches, including the principal bench, are equal, such a mis-impression cannot be made in the mind of the litigant, it said.

    “For, the principal bench cannot be allowed to robe itself with a superior authority which was never given to it by the Act. After all, the principal bench cannot be permitted to be usurper of the power,” the order said.

    The high court said, while considering the prayers of the Union of India to transfer the case from Nainital circuit bench to the principal bench, New Delhi, the tribunal should have considered the convenience of both the parties.

    A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the tribunal has failed to consider the hardship caused to the petitioner if the case were to be transferred from Nainital circuit bench to New Delhi, it said.

    “Travelling from Haldwani to New Delhi would also adversely affect his (Chaturvedi) physical health, and psychological makeup. For, he will continue to be under a mental tension while having to travel from Haldwani to New Delhi,” the order said.

    Thus, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner if the case should be heard by the Nainital circuit bench, and should be decided by it, it said.

    Chaturvedi, who is working as the chief conservator of forest at Haldwani, has challenged the 360 degree appraisal system for joint secretary and above level officers and recruitment of private sector specialists to central government posts through the lateral entry mode.

  • ‘Legally unsustainable’: Uttarakhand HC sets aside CAT order in IFS officer’s plea

    Express News Service

    DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand High Court has set aside an order by the chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which transferred the case of 2002-batch Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi to the tribunal’s Delhi bench. 

    The division bench of Chief Justice RS Chauhan and NS Dhanik while setting aside the order by CAT chairman L Narsimha Reddy stated that the reasoning contained in the order dated December 4, 2020 is “legally unsustainable”. 

    At present, Chaturvedi, a Magsaysay awardee, is posted as the chief conservator of forests in research wing of Uttarakhand forest department in Haldwani city. 

    The court observing that a bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that the tribunal has failed to consider the hardship caused to the petitioner stated in its order dated October 23, 2021, “Since the petitioner is presently posted as Chief Conservator of Forest (Working Plan), Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand, on every date of hearing, it is the petitioner who would be required to travel from Haldwani to New Delhi. His travelling would not only entail financial expenditure, but also require time and energy.” 

    The bench further added, “It will also necessitate that the petitioner should take leave from his work, thereby, preventing him from discharging his official duties. Travelling from Haldwani to New Delhi would also adversely affect his physical health, and psychological makeup. For, he will continue to be under a mental tension while having to travel from Haldwani to New Delhi. Thus, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner if the case should be heard by the Nainital Circuit Bench, and should be decided by it.” 

    The bench further remarking that since all the CAT benches, including the principal bench of the CAT have equal jurisdiction stated that the order by the CAT chairman creates an impression that somehow the other nenches of the CAT are subordinate to the principal bench, and the principal bench is paramount bench in the country. 

    “For, the impression is being created that issue of ‘national importance’ can be decided only by the Principal Bench, and by none others. According to Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, such an interpretation of the Act is highly misplaced. If such an impression were to be created, it would dilute the importance of other Benches of CAT, and for all practical purposes would make all other Benches of C.A.T. subordinate to the Principal Bench,” the HC bench observed in the order. 

    Replying to the Centre’s plea that relevant files are lying in New Delhi, and since relevant witnesses would be available in New Delhi, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the principal bench, rather than keeping the case pending before the Nainital circuit bench, the court observed in the order that the petitioner’s hardships have been ignored. 

    “Even if the records are in Delhi, the respondents have sufficient means to send them to Nainital. Moreover, the question of production of witnesses does not exist, for, CAT is not a trial court where witnesses need to be produced. Furthermore, since the petitioner is appearing in person before CAT, he would have to travel and stay at Delhi. He would have to invest time, energy and money to fight his case. According to Mr. Chaturvedi to force him to travel to Delhi on each date makes access to justice an expensive proposition. Yet, the learned Tribunal has ignored the hardship caused to the petitioner,” the HC bench remarked. 

    Chaturvedi had filed a case before Nainital Bench of the CAT in February 2020 alleging irregularities in the present system of empanelment at the level of joint secretary and above in the central government including recently introduced system of 360 degree appraisal and lateral entry of private sector experts. 

    Later, in in August 2020, notices were issued by the CAT to Union Public Service Commission and Uttarakhand state government. The Allahabad bench of the CAT had also granted time to counsel of central government to ‘seek instructions’ including department of personnel training (DoPT) and MoEF&CC (Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change). 

    In September 2020, the center was given ten days’ time to file preliminary submissions by the CAT bench, after they raised the issue of maintainability and the bench fixed date of September 22, 2020 for disposing the issue of maintainability.

    In a dramatic turn of events, the center on October 13, 2020 filed transfer petition requesting transfer of the case from Nainital Circuit Bench of Allahabad bench to Principal Bench, Delhi which was opposed by Chaturvedi.

    On December 4, 2020 the CAT chairman directed transfer of the petition to the principal bench of the CAT in Delhi.

    Chaturvedi challenged this order of the CAT chairman in Uttarakhand High Court stating that the order dated December 4, 2020 which Reddy passed as the chairman of the CAT is in blatant violation of principles of natural justice – audi alteram partem. 

  • Calcutta HC sets aside CAT’s ‘mala fide’ order against Alapan Bandopadhyay

    Express News Service

    KOLKATA:  In a sharply critical order dealing a blow to the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT)’s decision to transfer the hearing of former chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay’s case of alleged misconduct to Delhi, the Calcutta High Court on Friday said the “entire modus operandi” adopted by the Union of India “reeks of mala fides”.

    Setting aside the CAT order, the high court directed that the hearing of the case would be conducted at CAT’s Kolkata unit.

    “It is unfortunate that the Principal Bench of the CAT nurtured such efforts by passing the impugned transfer order, thereby paying obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India, which has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and various High Courts not to be a favoured litigant,” the judgment said.

    “Rather, the responsibility of meting out justice and serving the cause of justice is on a much higher pedestal for the Union of India than an ordinary individual litigant,’’ the high court observed.

    Bandopadhyay moved the high court challenging the CAT’s order of transferring his case of alleged misconduct.

    He alleged that he was being harassed on the charge that he had not attended a meeting of PM Narendra Modi at an air force base on May 28 to assess the damage caused by a cyclone. 

    The HC directed the Kolkata bench of CAT to decide the case on an expedite basis. The court further observed that such an action even by a quasi-judicial authority ‘leaves a bad taste in the mouth’ and also pose a threat to the federal structure as envisioned by the makers of the Constitution.      

    Earlier, replying to a show cause notice slapped by the Centre asking why action should not be taken against him for not attending the meeting with the PM, Bandopadhyay had said he was accompanying Mamata Banerjee and went by the instructions of the state chief minister to whom he reported.

  • Param Bir’s plea against Uddhav government can be decided by CAT: Bombay High Court

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it was of the prima facie opinion that the petition filed by former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh challenging the two preliminary enquiries (PEs) initiated against him by the Maharashtra government can be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

    A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and Manish Pitale noted that the relief claimed in the petition is related to service matters and hence the jurisdiction lies with the CAT.

    Singh’s advocate Sunny Punamiya, however, requested that the petition be adjourned as senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Singh, was not available on Tuesday.

    “We are of the prima facie opinion that the reliefs claimed in the petition can be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the petitioner’s advocate wants an adjournment. We find no urgency in the matter and post it for hearing on June 9,” the bench said.

    Maharashtra government counsel Darius Khambata told the HC that the petition became infructuous and does not survive as the state Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Pandey, who was asked to conduct the PEs against Singh, has recused himself given the allegations leveled against him in Singh’s plea.

    “The DGP has recused himself. Following this the state government has issued fresh orders setting up PEs against the petitioner. The government is also opposing the plea on maintainability as it is a service-related matter,” Khambata told the bench.

    Senior counsel Navroz Seervai, appearing for Pandey, told the high court that the DGP recused from conducting the inquiries the day he was given a copy of the petition.

    “The petition has leveled totally false allegations against him (Pandey),” Seervai added.

    Both Khambata and Seervai requested the high court to dismiss the petition saying Singh would have to approach the CAT.

    The bench, while adjourning the matter, said the pendency of this petition would not be an impediment to Singh to approach the tribunal.

    In his petition, Singh claimed that he was being targeted and harassed for highlighting the alleged “corrupt malpractices” of former state home minister and NCP leader Anil Deshmukh.

    Singh also claimed that during his meeting with DGP Pandey on April 19, the latter “advised him” to withdraw his letter against Deshmukh which he had sent to the state government.

    Singh, who in March this year shunted from the post of Mumbai police commissioner and posted as DG of Home Guards, had written to Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray claiming that Deshmukh had set a monthly collection target of Rs 100 crore to some police officers from bars and restaurants in Mumbai .

    Deshmukh had denied the allegations.

    He resigned last month after the HC ordered the CBI to conduct a PE against him.

    Singh’s petition challenged the two orders passed by the Maharashtra government on April 1 and April 20 directing DGP Pandey to conduct the PEs against him.

    The first order was passed by Deshmukh, when he was home minister, for alleged violation of some All India Services (Conduct Rules) and the another order dated April 20 was passed by the present home minister (Dilip Walse Patil) over allegations of corruption leveled against Singh.

  • Another recusal by CAT member in Magsaysay Award recipient officer’s plea, seventh in eight years 

    Express News Service
    DEHRADUN: There has been yet another ‘recusal’ from Magsaysay Award recipient Indian Forest Services officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi’s petition by a member of the bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, making it the seventh such instance since 2013.

    The observations came while hearing alleging irregularities in the lateral entry of joint secretaries in the centre. 

    The member recused himself citing that his ‘relative counsels’ might have been appeared for respondents in the matter and he ‘might’ have appeared with them for those respondents.

    The order by CAT bench comprising RN Singh and AK Bishnoi which was pronounced on March 11, 2021, stated, “One of us (Mr RN Singh, Members (J)) remembers that he has not been counsel for any of the parties in the matter(s) referred to above, however, from the orders under reference, it transpires that his relative counsels, practising from their chamber have counsel for some respondents in these matters and he might have appeared for them and/or with them. They may even not have come to the notice of the Hon’ble Chairman while constituting the present bench to hear the instant matter. Moreover, this bench has no vested in hearing a particular matter including the one in hand.”

    However, the member RN Singh has appeared for the respondents for at least four times according to the records of proceedings. 

    Legal experts have called this inappropriate. With Singh on March 11, 2021, recusing from hearing of the petition alleging irregularities in lateral entry of joint secretaries in the centre, a total of seven instances of recusals/relegation have occurred since the year 2013 with the officer. 

    Sudarshan Goel, senior advocate from the Supreme Court of India commenting on the issue said, “Excuse taken by concerned judge Mr RN Singh that his name was recorded in judicial orders, for appearing in cases against Sanjiv Chaturvedi just because he went in court with his relative counsels, is not appropriate. His appearence is recorded on atleast 4 occasions- 29.5.2015,3.5.2016,2.6.2016 and 3.6.2016 and even in final orders.”

    “Further judicial order dated 11.8.2015 even records that Another counsel Anmol Pandita appeared on his behalf which further contradicts his claims. Now this spree of bench hunting must stop and Nainital bench must be allowed to resume hearing without any further delay,” added Goel. 

    Magsaysay Award recipient of year 2015 and 2002 batch IFS officer, at present Chaturvedi is posted as chief conservator of forests in research wing of Uttarakhand forest department in Haldwani city. 

    Justice L Narasimha Reddy, chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal in January 2021 directed to list the case. 

    In the year 2019 too as CAT chairman, Justice Reddy had opted for recusal remarking that the peculiar and unfortunate situation that has developed in this case warrants that it be left open to the petitioners in the four PTs to seek their remedies in any forum or court”. 

    In December 2020, the Uttarakhand high court had issued notice to Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal while hearing a petition of 2002 batch Indian Forest Services officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi. 

    The notice was issued by the division bench of acting chief justice Ravi Malimath and justice Alok Kumar Verma of the HC while hearing a petition stating that apart from openly being a litigant against the petitioner, the chairman had a long history of extreme personal bias against the officer as he repeatedly passed adverse orders against him without affording any opportunity of hearing. 

    Chaturvedi in his petition stated that the order dated December 4, 2020, which Reddy passed as the chairman of the CAT is in blatant violation of principles of natural justice – audi alteram partem. 

    The December 4 order by the CAT chairman directed the transfer of a petition to the principal bench of the CAT in Delhi which was filed by Chaturvedi pertaining to the empanelment of joint secretaries in the central government. 

    Four other recusal/relegation instances include the names of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice KM Joseph when he was Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court and Justice UU Lalit from the Supreme Court and ACJM court of Shimla, Himachal Pradesh citing ‘personal reasons’. 

    In the year 2013, the then SC judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi reclused himself from the petition in which Chaturvedi requested a CBI inquiry alleging the involvement of the then Chief Minister of Haryana Bhupinder Singh Hooda, state forest minister and senior officials and his harassment after he exposed corruption. Interestingly, Rohinton Fali Nariman who is a SC judge now appeared against Chaturvedi in the matter. 

    Later in year 2016 another Supreme Court judge Justice UU Lalit reclused himself from the same case of forestry scam in Haryana. 

    In 2018 while hearing a case of defamation filed by Vineet Chaudhary, the then chief secretary of Himachal Pradesh, judge of the Shimla ACJM court reclused himself from the case citing ‘Personal Reasons’. 

    However, many legal experts say that there is a difference between ‘Recusal’ and ‘Relegation’. A senior counsel and law practitioner in Uttarakhand who requested not to be identified pointed out Justice KM Joseph’s order dated June 19, 2017, when he was Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, it is clear that he relegated the matter for CAT. 

    Countering this advocate Goel in the year 2017 also that the directions by the court were strange because cases of the same were heard by the same court and orders were passed too. Such instances/orders seem to be for advantage or disadvantage of of particular person and have malicious tones, he added.

    Goel also pointed out that two cases are glaring examples of service matter being admitted- One is of, Ashok Gupta, IFS of 2003 batch who had filed two ‘very strange’ writ petitions in 2016 and 2017 for cancellation of his own promotion as conservator of forests. 

    He further added that usually, government employees approach the court for grant of promotion but this was a unique case in which an employee had approached the court for cancellation of his own promotion and HC bench headed by the then chief justice KM Joseph admitted and passed favorable orders in January 2017.

    Another is that of 2007 batch IFS Sambandam who filed a writ petition in 2016 for preferred posting in territorial wing in plain areas and his petition was not only admitted by HC but also directions issued in October 2016.

    Goel also said that after relegating Mr Chaturvedi’s case to CAT in year 2017, Justice Joseph in year 2018 allowed a petition of Pankaj Kumar, another IFS officer requesting transfer cancellation. 

    “This is bizarre as if you look into both petitions, Chaturvedi is demanding a CBI inquiry among other requests while Kumar’s is a service matter more suited for CAT,” added Goel. 

  • CAT chief recuses himself from hearing whistleblower IFS officer’s case

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which adjudicates service-related matters of government employees, has recused himself from hearing a plea filed by IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi challenging the civil servants’ empanelment process.

    Chaturvedi, who is working as the Chief Conservator of Forest at Haldwani, Uttarakhand, had in February last year filed a case before the tribunal’s Nainital bench, challenging the Centre’s 360-degree appraisal system for officers of the level of joint secretary and above and the recruitment of private sector specialists to government posts through lateral entry.

    “Post the matter before court number 2 on February 1,” a bench comprising CAT Chairman L Narasimha Reddy and Member (Administration) Mohd Jamshed said in its order dated January 22.

    The CAT chief had last month allowed a petition by the Centre seeking transfer of Chaturvedi’s case from the tribunal’s Nainital bench to Delhi, saying “the matters of this nature have their own impact on the very functioning of the central government”.

    Commenting on the order, Chaturvedi’s counsel and senior advocate Sudershan Goel said the CAT chief ought not to have passed the order of transfer when he is in one-to-one litigation with the applicant.

    “Now, CAT Chairman L Narasimha Reddy has recused himself from hearing this matter and transferred this case to another court — court number 2,” he added.

    In March 2019, the CAT chief had recused himself from hearing Chaturvedi’s three other petitions citing some “unfortunate developments” and other reasons.

    The Uttarakhand High Court had last month issued notices to the Centre, the CAT chairman and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), among others, seeking their responses on Chaturvedi’s plea.

    Chaturvedi, a 2002-batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of the Uttarakhand cadre, in his plea, mentioned excerpts of an August 2017 report by a parliamentary committee that found flaws in the 360-degree appraisal system, also known as the multi-source feedback system, for civil servants.

    On the issue of lateral entry, Chaturvedi cited documents accessed through a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by him to get a response from the Centre and said the “contract system is completely arbitrary and irrational”.

    A total of nine private sector specialists were appointed in August last year as joint secretaries in different central government departments through the “lateral entry” mode, following their selection by the UPSC.

    Usually, the posts of joint secretaries are manned by officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Police Service (IPS), the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and the IFS among others, who are selected into services through a three-phased selection process undertaken by the UPSC.

    During his tenure at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) here between 2012 and 2016, Chaturvedi had investigated around 200 corruption cases.