In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow, and directed it to rehear the case involving serious allegations of misconduct against a government employee. The court emphasized the Tribunal’s obligation to adjudicate on facts, not merely exercise judicial review akin to that of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Background
The case stems from a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, Arun Kumar Gupta, an employee in the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. Gupta was accused of conducting improper tests and issuing false certificates in favor of a private firm, M/s Satyadeep Polypipes, Jalpaigudi, and allegedly accepting bribes in return. Following an oral complaint from the proprietor of the firm, Shri S. Goenka, Gupta was subjected to departmental proceedings, resulting in punitive action against him.
Dissatisfied with the proceedings and the decision, Gupta challenged the findings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow, through a transfer application (TA No. 01 of 2017). On January 17, 2024, the CAT dismissed his application, prompting Gupta to file a writ petition (Writ-A No. 3089 of 2024) before the Allahabad High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, identified several legal and factual issues that the Tribunal had overlooked in its earlier ruling. The following key issues were raised in the judgment:
1. Lack of Evidence of Misconduct: The court questioned whether there was any substantive evidence that Gupta had conducted 17 tests illegally, misusing his official position.
2. Absence of Test Reports: It was unclear whether Gupta had conducted any test on samples of PVC pipes before issuing the certificate to M/s Satyadeep Polypipes, and whether any financial transactions occurred between Gupta and the firm.
3. Reliability of Complaint: The court raised doubts regarding the oral complaint made by Shri S. Goenka, noting that it was not substantiated by any documentary evidence or witness testimony.
4. Factual Discrepancies: There were inconsistencies in the inquiry process, such as the nature of the vehicle used to transport the PVC pipes to the premises, casting doubt on whether the alleged tests were carried out at all.
5. Tribunal’s Scope and Power: The central legal question revolved around whether the Tribunal misdirected itself by acting as if it was exercising judicial review, akin to the High Court, instead of adjudicating on the factual aspects of the case, as it is mandated to do under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Court’s Observations
The High Court made critical observations regarding the scope of the Tribunal’s powers under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court noted that the CAT had acted under a misconception that its powers were akin to those of the High Court in judicial review, thereby declining to examine key factual issues. In this context, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, which clarifies that the Tribunal acts as the court of first instance in service matters and is empowered to take evidence, examine witnesses, and adjudicate factual disputes.
The High Court highlighted this fundamental difference, stating:
“It is a misconception that Tribunals while exercising the powers under the Act, 1985 in fact exercise powers of judicial review, stricto sensu, as the High Court does under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not so… The Tribunal while adjudicating a service dispute is empowered to enter into questions of fact, and decide factual issues based on evidence, as is done by the Civil Court.”
Decision of the Court
In its final ruling, the court quashed the CAT’s judgment and restored the petition for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. The court directed the CAT to rehear the case, focusing on the factual issues that were previously ignored, including the petitioner’s alleged misconduct and the validity of the evidence against him. The High Court also emphasized the need for a speedy adjudication, requesting the Tribunal to prioritize the case and resolve it within five months.
The court concluded by stating:
“The Tribunal shall be obliged to exercise the powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Section 22 of the Act, 1985, and decide the factual disputes that have arisen in the case.”
Case Title: Arun Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India
Case Number: Writ A No. 3089 of 2024
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Lawyers: Utsav Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra for the petitioner; A.S.G.I. Anurag Srivastava and Raj Kumar Singh for the respondents
