In this article Mohd. Hashim Miyan discusses jurisdiction of CAT.

A proper understanding of the nature, ambit and scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Involves analysis of the following issues which are relevant in the context:

• The jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal has been defined in positive as well as in negative terms, by the Act. Section 14 specifies the categories of persons in respect of whom and the subject-matters in relation to which, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends. Negatively, section 2 excludes the operation of the Act and consequently bars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of certain categories of persons specified therein. It, therefore, becomes necessary, in the first place, to analyse the provisions of these two sections so as to determine the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal vis-a-vis parties and the subject-matters.
• Within the limits thus defined, the Tribunal has been vested with all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all courts, except the Supreme Court, before the establishment of the Tribunal under Act. It is, therefore, required in the second place, to examine the nature, extent and scope of the jurisdiction, powers and authority, hitherto exercised by the subordinate civil Courts and the High Court, relating to matters, now, falling within the jurisdictional purview of the Tribunal.

To know more about the Administrative Tribunals in brief, please refer to the video below:

• In respect of the matters assigned for adjudication by the Tribunal, the Act excludes the jurisdiction of all courts, except the supreme court; and an industrial tribunal, a labour court or any other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law. Hence, it becomes necessary to examine the scope and effect of the exclusionary provisions of section 28 vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and to determine the nature and extent of jurisdiction exercisable by the Supreme Court, an industrial Tribunal, a labour court and other authorities excluded from the operation of the exclusionary clause.

Thus, all the above-mentioned issues, relating to the nature, extent, ambit and scope of the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal, may be examined in detail.  

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to Parties

The following categories of civil servants fall within the scope of jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal –

1. Members of the All India Services

An officer of the All-India Service, whether serving at a particular time, under the Centre Government or a State Government, is, now, subject to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of any dispute or controversy relating to his recruitment or other service matters.  

2. Persons Belonging to the Civil Services of the Union or Holding any Civil Posts under the Union

The two expressions “Civil services of the Union” and “Civil post under the Union” are also used in Article 311(1) of the constitution wherein certain procedural safeguards are laid down, which apply in matters of punishments of the way of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. But, neither the Constitution of India nor the Administrative Tribunals Act, has defined these terms. Hence, the true meaning and scope of these two terms have to be gathered in the light of the various pronouncements, made in this regard by the different courts and tribunals.

3. Persons Appointed to Civil Posts Connected with Defence or Civilians in Defence

Services Broadly speaking, there are two categories of civil servants under the Government. One class consists of those who are working on the defence side and the other is that which is engaged on the civil side of the administration. Both the categories of civil servants fall within the purview of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4. Persons Employed in any Local or Other Authorities

As already observed the employees of any local or other authorities (which have their independent existence apart from the Government) do not belong to the civil services of the Union (or a state) nor do they hold any civil post under the Union (or a state) and, as such, they do not the fall within the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunals. The Act, however, empowers the Central Government to extend the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, to the employees of any local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, provided such local or other authority is not controlled or owned by a State Government.

5. Persons Employed in any Corporation or a Society

As in the case of local and other authorities, the Central Government is further empowered, under section 14(2) to apply the provisions of the Act and thereby extend the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of the employees of any corporation or a society which is “owned or controlled by the Government”.

Jurisdiction in relation to Subject-matter

The foregoing discussion was aimed at analysing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal vis-a-vis parties from the point of view of the categories of posts or services to which they are appointed.

Next, it becomes necessary to examine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to the subject-matters falling within its purview. The Act speaks of the two broad categories of subject-matters, namely, “recruitment and matters concerning recruitment”, and “conditions of service”, in respect of which the Tribunal has been empowered to exercise its jurisdiction.

1. Recruitment and Matters Concerning Recruitment

The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal extends, in the first place, in relation to ‘recruitment and matters concerning recruitment’ to any service or post mentioned above. The expression “recruitment and matters concerning recruitment” refers to and signifies the entire process of securing appointment to any post or service. It involves a diverse variety of matters, such as the creation of a post or service, prescribing qualifications, inviting applications, determining mode and basis of selection of candidates, making and approving final selection, reservation of posts, etc. All these matters pertain to a preparatory stage-before actual appointment and the commencement of service. Any dispute or controversy arising at any stage of the recruitment process would fall within the purview of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2. Service Matters

The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal extends, in the next place, in relation to all service matters of the persons appointed to any service or post mentioned in section 14 of the Act. The expression “service matters” has been defined in section 3(q) of the Act. According to the provisions of this section “service matters” means all matters relating to the conditions of service as respects –

1. remuneration, including allowances, pensions, and other retirement benefits;
2. tenure, including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;
3. leave of any kind;
4. disciplinary matters; and
5. any other matter whatsoever.

In Dharam Dev Vs. Union of India and others [1989 (1) SLJ 11 (H.C.), it was observed by the Delhi High Court that clause (v) cannot be read ejusdem generis with the preceding four clauses of section 3(q). It has to be read in connection with the main clause of section 2, which is quite comprehensive to include all matters pertaining to the service conditions of the employees.

Exceptions

Section 2 excludes the operation of the Act in respect of certain categories of persons specified therein. As such, no Tribunal can exercise any jurisdiction, powers and authority over these persons. The exceptions, thus, embodied in this section cover the three broad categories of Government servants discussed below.  

1. Members of Armed Forces of the Union

Under Clause (a) of section 2 excludes the members of the naval, military and air forces, and of any other armed forces of the Union, from the operation of the Act and thereby debars the Tribunal from exercising any jurisdiction in respect of these persons.  

2. Members and Staff of the Judiciary

Article 146 of the Constitution authorises the Chief Justice of India to make appointments of the officers and servants of Supreme Court and also to prescribe by rules their conditions of service. Likewise, under Article 229 the Chief Justice of a High Court is vested with the power to make appointments of officers and servants of the High Court and to make rules regulating their conditions of service. The executive has no control in respect of these matters except that such rules, in so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension require the approval of the President (in the case of the staff of the Supreme Court) and of the Governor (in the case of the staff of the High Court).

3. Members of the Secretarial Staff of the Legislatures

Article 98 of the Constitution provides for a separate secretarial staff of the each House of Parliament. The Article empowers the Parliament to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament and until a law is made by the Parliament, the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of People or the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be, make rules regulating the same. Likewise under Article 187, each House of the Legislature of a State shall have a separate secretarial staff. Until provision is made by the Legislature of the State in this behalf, the rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the said secretarial staff may be made by the Governor after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council, as the case may be.

Jurisdiction Exercisable by the Supreme Court under Article 32

Under Article 32 a person can go direct to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Clause (2) of the Article empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs, whichever may be appropriate in the given case. The Court has repeatedly held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and it would decline to exercise this extraordinary jurisdiction on the ground, inter-alia, that there exists an alternative remedy which is sufficiently convenient and effective. It follows from this that although the right of an aggrieved Government servant to approach the Supreme Court, under Article 32(1), on a complaint of violation of any Fundamental Right, (such as those under Article 14 and l6) is still available to him yet, the Supreme Court may itself decline to entertain any such writ petition and direct the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Tribunal first, and then, approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. There are two obvious advantages in adopting this practice: (i) a Tribunal can go into the controversy more comprehensively than the Supreme Court can do under Article 32; and (ii) where the Government servant is not satisfied by the decision of the Tribunal he can, next, go to the Supreme Court by way of an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, if there exists any uncertainty on any point of law due to a conflict of decisions amongst the various Benches of the Tribunal, a writ petition involving such an issue may be entertained by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Jurisdiction Exercisable by the Supreme Court under Article 136

Article 136 of the Constitution invests the Supreme Court with a very special and extensive discretionary appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders and determinations of Tribunals (as well as Courts). The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under this Article is plenary leaving a wide discretion to the Court to define and delineate the province of its jurisdiction. A review of cases decided by the Supreme Court reveals that the Court’s power is extraordinary and discretionary and it would invoke it to interfere with the findings of the Tribunals only in exceptional circumstances, viz., when a question of law of general public importance is involved, or there is a grave miscarriage of justice which shocks the conscience of the court’. The facts and circumstances of each case determine whether there exist exceptional circumstances warranting the invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136, or not. Thus, the special leave is granted not as a matter of course but, only for good and sufficient reasons.

Nature of the Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of the Tribunal

The Act, on the one hand, debars all courts, except the Supreme Court, from exercising any jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to matters falling within the purview of Administrative Tribunals, and on the other hand, it vests in the Tribunal all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before the ‘appointed day’ by all the courts, except the Supreme Court. Thus, in relation to the matters transferred to the Tribunal for its adjudication, it (the Tribunal) has inherited all the jurisdiction powers and authority, hitherto, exercisable by all courts. The expression “all courts” Includes the ordinary civil courts of the subordinate judiciary as well as the High Courts but, not the Supreme Court.

Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority Inherited from the Civil Courts

The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Civil Courts, in recruitment and service matters, were exercised under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority Inherited from the High Courts

In relation to service disputes, the Administrative Tribunals have come to assume the entire jurisdiction, powers and authority of the High Courts.

Exclusion of the Jurisdiction of Courts

Section 28 of the Act, as originally enacted, provided for the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Thus, by implication, even the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution was excluded in relation to the matters falling within the purview of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. However, in the light of the direction given by the Supreme Court, in the Sampath Kumar’s case [(1985) 4 SCC 458], section 14, 15 and 28 were amended in 1986, by deleting the reference to Article 136 thereby making it clear that the entire jurisdiction of the Supreme Court remains unaffected.

Miscellaneous Issues Regarding Jurisdiction

Doubts still exist in respect of certain matters relating to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal, as well as the extent of jurisdiction powers and authority, if any, retained by the High Courts over Administrative Tribunals. Some of these matters are examined below-

Does a High Court retain any Jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 vis-a-vis Administrative Tribunals

It becomes, undisputedly, clear from a reading of the various provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act that a High Court is absolutely debarred from entertaining a writ petition and exercising any jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of the specified service matters which have been entrusted for adjudication by the Tribunals. But, uncertainty prevails over the question whether a High Court is also precluded from entertaining a writ petition against the Administrative Tribunal itself.

Whether the Tribunal is Bound by the Law declared by the High Courts

It is yet a moot question as to whether a law declared by the High Court is binding on the Tribunal or not. The Act does not, in express terms, contain any provision to this effect. Neither has there been any judicial pronouncement precisely on the point. But, from the fact that the Act divests all courts, including the High Courts (but excluding the Supreme Court) of the jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of the specified service matters and invest the same in the Tribunals whose decisions are final and cannot be called in question in any court, including a High Court, it clearly implies that within the area of its operation the Tribunal enjoys a status 234 at par with a High Court. As such the decisions of the High Courts would not constitute binding precedents for the Tribunals though, of course, they may have a great persuasive value similar to that of the decisions of one High Court for other High Courts.

Whether the Tribunal has got the Power to Examine the Measure of Punishment

In Union of India Vs. Parma Nand it was held by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal has no power to Interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that it is disproportionate to the proved misconduct when the findings as to misconduct or misdemeanour of the delinquent employee are supported by legal evidence. In the Court’s opinion if there was an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. However, the court was careful to point out that where the finding of the enquiry officer is arbitrary, perverse, mala-fide and not supported by any evidence, the Tribunal can modify the quantum of penalty. Additionally, the court carved out another exception when the penalty is imposed under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(s), namely where the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is imposed as a consequence of criminal conviction. If the punishment is excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the offence leading to conviction, the Tribunal may remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for consideration, or it may by itself substitute one of the penalties specified in clause (a). It is, however, submitted, with due respect to the Hon’ble Court, that the propositions of law laid down, in this case, are not sound and they unduly restrict the powers of the Tribunal in this regard.