Union Of India And Others vs Kailash Chandra Sahoo
2023 Latest Caselaw 3554 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P (C) No. 22355 of 2020

Union of India and others                .....                                 Petitioners
                                                        Mr. S. Swain, Sr. Panel Counsel,
                                                                           Govt. of India
                                         Vs.
Kailash Chandra Sahoo                    .....                             Opposite Party
                                                            Mr. D.P. Dhalasamanta, Adv.
              CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                  MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                                ORDER

17.04.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

10.

2. Heard Mr. S. Swain, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India for the petitioners and Mr. D.P. Dhalasamanta, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 26.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 71 of 2017 under Annexure-1.

4. Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, contended that though the judgment was reserved by the tribunal on 04.03.2020, but the same was pronounced on 26.05.2020, which is in gross violation of rules governing the field.

5. Mr. D.P. Dhalasamanta, learned counsel for the opposite party states that the tribunal is well justified in passing the order impugned and, as such, this Court should not interfere with the same at this stage.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that admittedly the tribunal heard the matter and reserved the same on 04.03.2020 and pronounced the same on 26.05.2020 (though initially it was

recorded as "26.3.2020" but subsequently corrected as "26.5.2020" by scoring through the month '3' as '5') beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 105 (b) of the C.A.T. Rules of Practice 1993, wherein it has specifically prescribed that the order shall be pronounced within three weeks from the date of reserve. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nityananda Barik v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 16659 of 2014 disposed of on 05.05.2022). Thereby, the judgment so passed by the tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

7. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 26.05.2020 passed in O.A. No. 71 of 2017 under Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for its fresh disposal by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE