Central Administrative Tribunal Can Enter Into Questions Of Fact & Decide Factual Issues Based On Evidence: Allahabad HC

The Court was disposing a writ petition challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow that rejected a transfer application.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla clarified the extent of powers of Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and observed: "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, even though not bound by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In fact, the Tribunal is a substitute for the Civil Court"

Advocate Utsav Mishra and Gaurav Mehrotra appeared for the petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta, ASGI Anurag Srivastava and Advocate Raj Kumar appeared for the Union of India.

While Tribunals constituted under the 1985 Act have certain powers analogous to High Courts, such as deciding the vires of an enactment, they are “also supposed to act as Courts or Tribunals of first instance so as to thrash out findings of fact.”, the Court said.

The Court said “it is a misconception” that administrative tribunals under the 1985 Act exercise powers of judicial review stricto sensu, or in the strict sense.

It highlighted that Section 22 of the 1985 Act consists of the full list of powers of administrative tribunals. This includes the power to regulate their own procedure (and not be bound by the Criminal Procedure Code), summon, require the discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit and reviewing its decision.

While tribunals can take evidence, evaluate and record findings of fact, the High Court cannot, under Article 226 undertake so, the Court noted. High Court proceedings are summary proceedings, whereas those of tribunas, even though required to be completed expeditiously, “are not the same as the High Court in this sense”, it held.

The Court ruled that the tribunal had declined to enter into factual issues on a under the impression that it was only required to conduct summary proceedings, as High Courts do while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The jurisdictional powers granted to tribunals do not take away their “initial role” of acting as a court or tribunal of first instance, the Court clarified.

“In fact, the Tribunal is a substitute for a civil court”, the Court said, noting that before the 1985 Act was enacted, all administrative matters first went before the civil courts.

The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) stated that Tribunals Act as the “only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted.”

The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. The transfer petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow will now be heard afresh.