Tara Nath Pandey V. Union of India

WPSB/438/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Tara Nath Pandey, the petitioner, who challenged the termination of his services through a writ petition after the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his original application on the grounds of limitation. The High Court found that the Tribunal had taken a hyper-technical view by dismissing the case solely on limitation without considering the substantive issues. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the case on its merits, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694164 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others : AIR 1964 SC 1344, Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. : (2008) 14 SCC 171, Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt and Ors : AIR 1961 SC 970, Rex vs Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal : (1952) 1 KB 338, Nagendra Nath Bora and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors : AIR 1958 SC 398, T. Prem Sagar Vs. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company Madras and Ors.: AIR 1965 SC 111, Bachan Singh and Ors. Vs. Gauri Shankar Agarwal and Ors : (1972) 4 SCC 257, Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. : (2010) 13 SCC 336
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K KAPARUWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M C PANT
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Certiorari; Certiorari; Error of fact; Jurisdiction; Limitation; Writ petition; Error of law
• Section: 331/00041

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application MCC No. 1276 /2018 Delay Cond. Appn. in Review Appn. No. 14736 / 2018 In Writ Petition No. 438 (S/B) of 2016 Tara Nath Pandey …. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others …. Respondents / review applicants Dated: 17th May, 2019 Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for the Union of India (review applicants), and Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 2. The writ petition was filed questioning the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench at Nainital in O.A. no. 331 / 00041 of 2014 dated 14.09.2015. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, by its order dated 14.09.2015, dismissed the O.A. on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While holding that the Central Administrative Tribunal had taken a hyper- technical view in rejecting the case of the petitioner merely on the ground of limitation, and in holding that the delay 2 was due to the poverty of the petitioner and ill advice rendered to him by his counsel, the Division Bench also held that the petitioner has been continuously working from 01.01.1990 till 13.10.2008; workmen, junior to the petitioner, had been retained, while the service of the petitioner had been terminated; and it was a fit case where the principle of ‘Last Come, First Go’ should be applied. The writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal was quashed, the order dated 14.10.2008, terminating the services of the petitioner, was declared void ab initio, and the petitioner was held entitled to continue in service, along with all consequential benefits including back wages. The Division Bench further directed that, considering the length of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1990 to 13.10.2008, the petitioner was entitled for regularization. 3. The scope of interference in certiorari proceedings is extremely limited. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction such as in cases where the order is passed without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction or where, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence, and the inference of fact to be drawn therefrom, cannot be agitated in certiorari proceedings (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others : AIR 1964 SC 1344) as it is in the province of a court of appeal. 3 4. If the tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, or if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, it would be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Where the conclusion of law by the Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, or in ignorance of it or even in disregard of it or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Whether or not an error is an error of law, and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and upon the nature and scope of the legal provisions which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened. (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others : AIR 1964 SC 1344). 5. Unlike an appellate authority which can re-appreciate the evidence on record, the High Court, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, would not substitute its views for that of the Tribunal, nor would it re-appreciate the evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal whose order is impugned before it. Even if two views are possible, and the Tribunal has taken one of the possible views, the High Court would not interfere, in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, even if it were to be satisfied that the other possible view, canvassed before it, is more attractive. A finding of fact reached, on the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings save a finding of fact which is either perverse or is based on no evidence. If a provision is reasonably capable of two constructions, and one construction has been adopted by the authority, its conclusion may not always be open to correction in writ proceedings. 4 (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others : AIR 1964 SC 1344). 6. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior tribunals. A writ can similarly be issued where, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as, for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. (Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. : (2008) 14 SCC 171 ; Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others : AIR 1964 SC 1344). A writ of certiorari can be issued in the case of illegal exercise of jurisdiction, and also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, even though they do not go to jurisdiction. It is only errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and not errors of fact though they may be apparent on the face of the record, which can be corrected, (Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt and Ors : AIR 1961 SC 970 ; Rex vs Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal : (1952) 1 KB 338; and Nagendra Nath Bora and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors : AIR 1958 SC 398), and not every error either of law or fact which can be corrected by a Court of appeal or revision. (T. Prem Sagar Vs. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company Madras and Ors.: AIR 1965 SC 111; Bachan Singh and Ors. Vs. Gauri Shankar Agarwal and Ors : (1972) 4 SCC 257 ; Nagendra Nath Bora and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors : AIR 1958 SC 398). 5 7. Further an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari, must be self-evident. It should not need an elaborate examination of the record (Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S.B. Bhatt and Ors : AIR 1961 SC 970), or require a detailed examination or an elaborate argument to establish it (Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. : (2008) 14 SCC 171; Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Respondent:Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Ors. : AIR 1955 SC 233 ; Batuk K. Vyas Vs. Surat Borough Municipality and Ors : AIR 1953 Bom. 133). An error cannot be said to be apparent if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. It is an error which strikes on the mere looking, and does not need a long-drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such an error would not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record. (Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. : (2008) 14 SCC 171 ; Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. : (2010) 13 SCC 336). 8. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Nainital, had dismissed the O.A solely on the ground of limitation. After holding that the Tribunal had taken a hyper-technical view, and that the O.A. should not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the Division Bench should have remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider the petitioner’s claim in the O.A. on its merits, without regard to limitation. In certiorari proceedings, this court would not don the robes of the Tribunal in adjudicating the claim 6 of the petitioner, which exercise the Tribunal is required to undertake. Both the orders under review and the order of the Tribunal dated 14.09.2015 are set aside, except to the limited extent, the Division Bench has faulted the Tribunal for rejecting the claim petition on the ground of limitation. 9. The Tribunal shall examine the petitioner’s contentions in the O.A. afresh, and in accordance with law, except on the question of limitation as the Division Bench had held that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim petition on this ground. Except to the extent indicated hereinabove, the petitioner’s claim petition shall be examined by the Tribunal on its merits, without being influenced by the observations made either in the order under review or in the order now passed by us. Needless to state that, since the O.A. relates to the year 2105, the Tribunal shall decide it with utmost expedition. The review application stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. (Lok Pal Singh, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 17.05.2019 Negi "