Chaman Lall v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/11/2024 Chaman Lall Vs The Union of India and others Mr. Rajinder Singh Mr. Tapan Kumar Das ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents June 12, 2024 [SR] Item No.9 The petitioner has challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated November 16, 2023. Learned counsel for the parties argue on the merits of the case. However, upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, we find that there are primarily two reasons given in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said impugned judgment for refusal to interfere on the petitioner's application.

Paragraph No. 6 states that the Tribunal found that the applicant/petitioner had not challenged a speaking order dated February 18, 2015 passed by the respondents in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal in OA No. 351/00147/2015 wherein the prayer made in his representation dated September 16, 2014 had been rejected. Moreover, it was recorded by the Tribunal, the applicant had not brought out specific grounds as to why the said speaking order is not sustainable under law.

By way of the second ground, in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned judgment of Tribunal, it was recorded that the Tribunal has examined the speaking order dated February 18, 2015 and found it to be detailed and well-reasoned, for which it did not find any infirmity in the said speaking order.

Even a cursory glance at the impugned judgment of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal shirked its duty in failing to advert

to the details of the case and the particular contentions of the parties.

Prior to paragraph No. 6, the impugned judgment merely contains the narrative of the arguments. The cryptic reason for dismissal of the petitioner's application was that the petitioner had not challenged a speaking order of the respondent authorities dated February 18, 2015.

However, we find that although the petitioner's application bearing OA No. 351/00060/2015 (AN) was somewhat unhappily drafted as the order of the respondent dated February 18, 2015 does not find specific mention in the reliefs sought therein, at the same time, substantial challenge on various grounds was preferred against the said order in the body of the said application. For example, in paragraph 1(i), the petitioner categorically stated that the petitioner had directed the application against the impugned order dated February 18, 2015. In other paragraphs as well, such as sub-clause (xxiii) of clause 4 and sub-clause (viii) of clause 5, certain grounds have been mentioned by the petitioner to justify the challenge against the order dated February 18, 2015.

Hence, the primary premise of the Tribunal for rejecting the petitioner's application, that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated February 18, 2015, is perverse and cannot be sustained. By way of further reasoning, apparently as an afterthought, the Tribunal stated in paragraph No. 7 of its impugned judgment that it had examined the speaking order dated February 18, 2015 and found it to be detailed and well-reasoned, for which there was no interference by the Tribunal. However, it is well-settled that reason is the sole of any judgment and as such, the Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in not adverting to the arguments of both parties and the particulars of the case in detail before coming to a conclusion as to the petitioner not having any case.

In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of proper reasons. It should be mentioned here that although the materials relied on by the parties before this Court may be sufficient to decide the matter on merits, we are conscious of the fact that in the event this Court enters into an assessment/enquiry on merits into the

contentions of the parties, the parties shall lose a forum, since it is the Tribunal which is the appropriate forum in law to decide the issues involved. Hence, the appropriate course of action would be to relegate the matter back to the Tribunal for a proper consideration of the case on merits.

Accordingly, WP.CT/11/2024 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated November 16, 2023 passed in OA/ 351/00060/2015 (AN) and remanding the matter to the Tribunal with a direction on the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the issues involved upon giving a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties on the materials already on record and to pass a reasoned judgment upon adverting to all the material components of the case and the arguments of the parties in detail. It is expected that such exercise shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order to the Tribunal.

It is further made clear that it will be open to the Tribunal, if necessary, to permit the petitioner to amend the reliefs of the OA. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)