Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Authority: AIIMS vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 79
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), acting alone, halt proceedings that are already underway before a Division Bench of the same Tribunal? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. The case revolves around a dispute over the powers of the Chairman of the CAT and the proper procedure for handling cases within the Tribunal. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarifies the limits of the Chairman’s authority, emphasizing the importance of judicial hierarchy within the CAT.

Case Background

Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service officer, was posted as Deputy Secretary at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, from June 29, 2012, to June 28, 2016. This post was created to manage infrastructure projects, oversee the Institute, and coordinate with experts.

In addition to his role as Deputy Secretary, Mr. Chaturvedi was also assigned the duties of Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) of AIIMS. However, over time, his responsibilities were gradually reduced. By December 2015, he was left with minimal work, primarily signing pension papers and booking guest houses.

Mr. Chaturvedi alleged that his duties were withdrawn after he exposed corruption in infrastructure projects. Despite being praised for his integrity and performance, he faced criticism and was eventually given an adverse Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) with “Zero” grading in all attributes for the year 2015-2016. He had also received the Ramon Magsaysay Award for his integrity and courage in exposing corruption.

Aggrieved by these actions, Mr. Chaturvedi filed applications before the CAT, challenging the withdrawal of his duties and the adverse APAR. These applications led to a series of proceedings and appeals, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Mr. Chaturvedi filed an application before the Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi, seeking directions for the allocation of the work of Deputy Secretary. This application was dismissed on May 17, 2016. He then challenged the memorandum dated January 7, 2016, regarding his alleged insubordination, before the same bench, which is still pending.

After receiving an adverse APAR, Mr. Chaturvedi filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court, on June 19, 2017, directed him to approach the CAT. Subsequently, Mr. Chaturvedi filed an application before the Nainital Bench of the CAT, challenging the adverse APAR.

The Nainital Bench passed an interim order in favor of Mr. Chaturvedi on September 18, 2017. However, the Union of India applied for the transfer of this case to the Principal Bench at Delhi. The Chairman of the CAT, sitting singly, then stayed the proceedings before the Nainital Bench, leading to a writ petition by Mr. Chaturvedi before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court set aside the Chairman’s order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act), particularly Sections 5, 24, and 25. This Act was enacted under Article 323A of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for disputes related to the recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.

Section 5 of the Act deals with the composition of Tribunals and Benches. It specifies that a Tribunal consists of a Chairman and judicial and administrative members. A Bench typically comprises one judicial and one administrative member. The Chairman has administrative powers, including transferring members between Benches and authorizing single-member Benches for certain cases.

Section 24 of the Act outlines the conditions for making interim orders, requiring that the opposing party be given copies of the application and an opportunity to be heard. It also allows for exceptional interim orders to prevent irreparable loss, but these are limited to a maximum of fourteen days unless certain conditions are met.

Section 25 of the Act empowers the Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another, either on the application of a party or on his own motion, after notice to the parties.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while Tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act, they must adhere to the principles of natural justice and the rules of procedure established by the Act.

Arguments

The appellant, AIIMS, argued that the Chairman of the CAT, under Sections 5(6) and 25 of the Act, has the power to stay proceedings before any Bench, including a Division Bench, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial uniformity. They contended that the cases before the Principal Bench and the Nainital Bench were similar, both relating to the APAR of 2015-2016.

The respondent, Sanjiv Chaturvedi, countered that the Chairman, sitting singly, has no power to stay proceedings before a Division Bench. He argued that a statutory body can only exercise powers explicitly granted by the statute. He also pointed out that the interim order passed by the Chairman was in violation of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had directed him to approach the Tribunal.

Mr. Chaturvedi further argued that the ex-parte interim order passed by the Chairman was in violation of Section 24 of the Act, as it was for six weeks, without any finding of irreparable loss. He also contended that the cause of action in the two proceedings before the CAT were different, as the communication of the adverse APAR gave rise to a fresh cause of action.

AIIMS relied on the judgments in Dr. Mahabal Ram vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and others and L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. to support their claim that the Chairman has the power to stay proceedings.

Mr. Chaturvedi relied on Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., Kishorbhai Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., Kishore Samrite V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, to argue that the High Court had rightly imposed a fine on the appellant, as the appellant had obtained an ex parte order by misrepresentation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for adjudication:

1. Whether the Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting singly and exercising his power under Section 25 of the Act, to transfer proceedings from one Bench to another, could have stayed proceedings before a two-member Bench and rendered interim orders passed by that Bench inoperative.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dr. Mahabal Ram vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others [CITATION]: The Court clarified that this case was not an authority for the proposition that the Chairman of CAT, sitting singly to decide on application for transfer under Section 25 of the Act, can stay the proceeding before a two Member Bench or interfere with the orders of a two Member Bench.
• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court clarified that this case was not an authority for the proposition that the Chairman of CAT, sitting singly to decide on application for transfer under Section 25 of the Act, can stay the proceeding before a two Member Bench or interfere with the orders of a two Member Bench.
• Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to support the proposition that the power to grant interim relief must expressly be provided by statute.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The principle that statutory bodies can only exercise powers explicitly granted by the statute.
• The need to maintain judicial hierarchy and decorum within the CAT.
• The limitations on the Chairman’s administrative powers under Section 25 of the Act.
• The specific requirements for granting interim orders under Section 24 of the Act.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Chairman of the CAT, while having administrative powers, cannot stay proceedings before a Division Bench of the same Tribunal.
• The power to grant interim orders lies with the Tribunal or a Bench of the Tribunal, not the Chairman acting alone under Section 25.
• Interim orders must comply with the conditions outlined in Section 24 of the Act, including a finding of irreparable loss.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of judicial hierarchy and decorum within the CAT.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000 with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion about any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), acting under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, does not have the power to stay proceedings before a Division Bench of the same Tribunal. This clarifies the limits of the Chairman’s administrative powers and reinforces the principle that interim orders can only be passed by a properly constituted Bench of the Tribunal. The judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather clarifies the existing position.

Conclusion

In the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that the Chairman of the CAT, while having administrative powers, cannot stay proceedings before a Division Bench. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory bodies can only exercise powers explicitly granted by the statute and emphasizes the importance of judicial hierarchy within the CAT. The Court also highlighted the limitations on the Chairman’s powers under Section 25 of the Act and the specific requirements for granting interim orders under Section 24 of the Act.