The bench of divisional HC comprising of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Mr. Justice Amit Bansal in the present case stated “If post inquiry, the jurisdiction would be that of the High Court, it cannot be argued that pre-inquiry, and the jurisdiction would be that of CAT.”
Facts of the case
In the present case, the respondent was a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Vide notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act), the respondent was appointed as Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur. The respondent, was recalled by High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent challenged the said order of the High Court before the Supreme Court, whereby an interim order of recall was stayed. Though on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh having recalled the respondent, the Ministry of Finance, had relived the respondent from the charge of Presiding Officer of DRT, but on interim stay being granted by the Supreme Court, the said relieving order was ordered to be kept in abeyance and accordingly a revised notification was issued and the respondent was allowed to continue in service. The respondent, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, superannuated from the judicial service of State of Andhra Pradesh. The Ministry of Finance issued notification and directed that the respondent shall be entitled to remain in service, when he completes 5 years’ service in the DRT or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
Contention of the parties
The counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Verma to contend that the Presiding Officer (P.O.) of a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is not a Government Servant in terms of Rule 2(b) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In the said judgment, it has been observed that during the statutory tenure as a P.O., DRT, the P.O. was not in any civil service and nor was he holding any civil post. Therefore, in terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, CAT did not have jurisdiction in the present case.
Senior counsel for the respondent was questioned that, if the inquiry against the P.O. of a DRT is to be conducted by a Judge of the High Court, would CAT still have jurisdiction in matters concerning the said inquiry. The senior counsel for the respondent fairly agreed that in such eventuality the jurisdiction would lie with the High Court and not with CAT, in view of the fact that High Court exercises jurisdiction over CAT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If that be so, it cannot be that depending upon the stage of inquiry, the jurisdiction would lie with CAT or with High Court. If post inquiry, the jurisdiction would be that of the High Court, it cannot be argued that pre inquiry, and the jurisdiction would be that of CAT. There cannot be different forums depending upon different stages of disciplinary proceedings.
Courts observation and judgement
The court in the present case came to a conclusion stating “In the light of the discussion above, the P.O., DRT cannot be said to be holding a civil post under the Union and therefore, CAT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by CAT is set aside. However, the respondent would be free to take any such remedies that may be available to him in law.”
Picture Source :
