Shri Geesh Kaushik vs Union Of India And Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 1157 Del

ORDER

B.A. Khan, J.

1. Strange could be the ways of judicial functioning also if one was to go by the twists and turns of the present case which had left petitioner high and dry for no fault of his.

2. Petitioner's services were terminated sometime in 1992. He challenged this in OA 99/92 by CAT New Delhi which was heard by a DB comprising the then Vice Chairman Dr. Vergese and the other member Shri K. Muthu Kumar.

3. While he was awaiting the outcome he was told that the result had partly gone his way. But that was to be. His case was eventually dismissed not on merit but because two Hon'ble Members of the Bench had differed in their judgment.

4. This is how all this happened. Record shows that after petitioner's OA was heard a joint Judgment dated 12.12.97 was prepared and authorised by the Vice-Chairman allowing petitioner's claim partly and directing his reinstatement in service consequential benefits which were left to be dealt with by the Competent Authority. It transpires from note dated 6.3.98 recorded by the other member that the VC announced this judgment dated 12.12.1997 on his own. The other Hon'ble Member Shri Muthu Kumar reacted to this by writing his own undated judgment dismissing petitioner's OA. Instead of referring their disagreement to a third Member for a majority judgment, Vice Chairman Dr. Vergese passed an undated order recording that in view of the differences between the two Members of the Bench on some question of fact, no relief could be granted to petitioner and his OA is dismissed. While doing so he referred to Supreme Court judgment in Shri Minakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Union (AIR 1957 SC 75) which was wholly irrelevant to the controversy in question.

5. Feeling aggrieved petitioner field this petition way back in 1998 which has remained pending ever since with the result that he had yet to know whether his termination from service was good or bad. It is not known whether Tribunal is governed by any rules or procedure regulating its functioning and whether there is any provision to meet such an anomalous and unfortunate situation. But it could still fall back upon established judicial practice/norms to deal with eh situation by referring the points of difference between the two Hon'ble Members comprising the Bench to a third Member for a majority verdict. We are at a loss to appreciate why it was not done at the relevant time. We also feel concerned at the cavalier manner in which the case was dealt with by the Hon'ble members with undated orders being passed and one member pronouncing the judgment at the back of other. A sorry state of affairs indeed.

6. We could only hope that such situation was not allowed to arise again as it was bound to shaken the faith and confidence of Govt. employees/Civil servants in the functioning of Tribunal. Therefore, it is high time that necessary steps are taken to frame any rules/guidelines for regulating internal functioning of Tribunal if not already in force.

7. This petition in consequently allowed and undated order passed by Vice-Chairman Dr. Vergese dismissing petitioner's OA 99/92 quashed. This OA shall revive and be considered and disposed of afresh within two months from the date of appearance of parties either by newly constituted Division Bench or on a reference to a third Member (Judicial).

8. Parties to appear before Tribunal on 30th August, 2001.

9. dusty to both parties.