Jawahar Singh vs Union of India and Others

J.K. Biswas, J.

The petitioner in the WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated July 30, 2012 is questioning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench dated June 29, 2012 summarily dismissing his OA No. 556 of 2012 with MA No. 274 of 2012 for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed the OA questioning the things stated in para. 1.1 thereof; and the para, is quoted below:--

"1.1 This Application is made

(a) for implementing Memo E/WSR/CL III-491 (Conf-Sec) Court Case dated December 30, 2012 and

(b) challenging issuance of Memo E/Recruitment Cell/RTI/Pt I dtd. January 31, 2012 communicated vide Memo L/No. F/RTI Cell 00200 dated Feb., 01, 2012."

In the sub-paragraphs 4.1 to 4.10 the petitioner stated the following case. He was born on September 15, 1955. In 1981 he was selected for the post of Khalasi. At medical examination he was declared unfit. On March 19, 1982 he made certain representation. On September 10, 1982 he produced Physically Handicapped Certificate. On August 20, 1998 he made certain representations. The respondents replied on September 9, 1998. In October 1998 he moved an OA No. 1423 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on September 18, 2000. In 2001 he moved a WPCT No. 1430 of 2001. On May 10, 2002 the WPCT was dismissed. On October 24, 2002 he made certain representation to Chief Works Manager. He made representation to the then Railway Minister on November 15, 2010.

Since we are unable to understand what the petitioner actually wanted to say in OA sub-paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12, we think it will be appropriate to quote the sub-paras., which are as follows:--

"4.11. Applicant states that on January 31, 2012 Memo E/Recruitment Cell/RTI/PTI was issued under letter Feb., 01, 2012. Copy of letter is annexed as A-7.

4.12. Applicant states that on December 30, 2002 Memo E/WSR/CL 111-491 (CONF-SEC) Court case was issued which he came to know on June 21, 2012.

Copy of letter is annexed as A-8."

A copy of the OA has been produced with the WPCT without the annexures to the OA. Mr. Das appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the annexures to the OA have been produced with the WPCT separately.

What we understand from Mr. Das''s submissions is this. The Chief Works Manager ERIy, Jamalpur issued a letter dated December 30, 2002 offering the petitioner an appointment to the post of LDC Gr II. The petitioner had no knowledge of the letter and he acquired knowledge of the letter only on June 21, 2012. As a result, he was deprived of the opportunity of accepting the offer. The Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the OA saying that the petitioner never made any attempt to join the post accepting the offer.

The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner''s OA saying as follows:--

"6. In our considered view, application is premature. Applicant who ought to have taken vigorous step to pursue representation made pursuant to Hon''ble High Court''s order dated 10.5.02, seems to have remained indecisive and made no efforts. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the claim laid. No prima-facie case has been made out warranting interference. O.A. is accordingly dismissed under Section 19(3) of the A.T. Act. M.A. also stands dismissed. No costs."

The Tribunal dismissed the OA at the admission stage itself and the principal reason for dismissing it was that the petitioner had not made any effort to join the post accepting the offer of appointment dated December 30, 2002. The Tribunal, however, did not give any finding on the petitioner''s case that he acquired knowledge of the offer letter only on June 21, 2012.

The petitioner''s OA case gave rise to the issue whether even after receiving the offer letter dated June 30, 2002 he remained silent and wanted to take undue benefit of the letter saying that before June 21, 2012 he had knowledge of the offer. In view of the OA case, in our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have admitted the OA and asked the respondents to file their reply dealing with the petitioner''s OA case. By not doing this the Tribunal erred in law.

To the WPCT the respondents have filed an opposition dated November 27, 2013 and they have stated two facts:- (i) the petitioner suppressed the fact that in compliance with the order of this Court in his WPCT the Chief Works Manager, ERIy, Jamalpur gave a decision dated September 30, 2002 rejecting his claim for an employment; and (ii) the letter dated December 30, 2002 produced with the OA was a fake letter.

Mr. Banerjee appearing for the respondents has argued that in view of the case stated by the respondents in their opposition to the WPCT, this Court should maintain the order of the Tribunal. Referring to the petitioner''s reply dated December 3, 2013, Mr. Das has submitted that-the petitioner has disputed the respondents'' case that the offer letter dated December 30, 2002 is a fake letter.

The case stated by the respondents in their opposition to the WPCT was not their case before the Tribunal; for they could not file any reply to the OA that the Tribunal dismissed at the admission stage itself. Hence correctness of the Tribunal order is not to be decided on the basis of the respondents'' case stated in their opposition. Besides the opposition case disputed by the petitioner specifically in his reply cannot lead to a conclusion that the offer letter dated December 30, 2002 is a fake letter. The question whether it is a fake letter is to be decided only after taking down evidence.

Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is regarding the procedure and powers of the Tribunals established under the Act and sub-section (3) of Section 22 specifically provides that for the purpose of discharging its function under the Act a Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit, in respect of the matters enumerated thereunder.

The matters enumerated under Section 22(3) are the following:--

"(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (1 of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

(f) reviewing its decisions;

(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and

(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government."

It is, therefore, evident that the principal issue arising from the OA case that was to be taken at face value could be and can be decided by the Tribunal taking down evidence and admitting documentary evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case should be remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication of all the issues including the above-noted issue, if it arises from the pleadings of the parties after the respondents and the petitioner file their respective reply and rejoinder. For these reasons, we set aside the Tribunal order, allow the WPCT and order that the Tribunal shall treat the OA as admitted and decide it on merits keeping in mind the observations made in this decision. No costs. Certified xerox.

Ishan Chandra Das, J.

I agree.