Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Administrative Tribunal’s Orders, Emphasizes the Need for Reasoned Decisions in Case Transfers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has overturned two orders issued by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, highlighting the importance of providing well-reasoned decisions when transferring cases between benches. The decision, delivered by Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, brings attention to the principles of natural justice in administrative actions.

The judgment, which pertained to W.P.(C) 6326/2023 and W.P.(C) 7341/2023, revolved around the transfer of cases initiated by the State of Bihar against Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer Amit Lodha. The State had challenged orders issued by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which had transferred and retained the cases.

Justice Rao and Justice Mendiratta emphasized that administrative authorities, even when exercising powers to transfer cases, must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the necessity for well-reasoned decisions. The court observed that the Chairman’s orders lacked the required reasoning, violating these principles.

“The law with regard to the nature of power exercised by the Chairman of the Tribunal has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, (2020) 17 SCC 602, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the power to transfer cases from one Bench to another under Section 25 is an administrative power of the Chairman,” the court stated.

The court further added, “One of the submissions of Mr. Amanullah was that the impugned orders render Sections 18 and 19 of the Act of 1985 otiose. Suffice it to state, we are not impressed by the said plea, as under Section 25 of the Act, the Chairman is expressly vested with the power to transfer cases from one Bench of the Tribunal to another.”

The Delhi High Court set aside the orders issued on March 2, 2023, and March 27, 2023, by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It directed the Chairman to reconsider the Transfer Petitions with a focus on providing well-reasoned and speaking orders. Until new decisions are reached, no proceedings will take place in the affected cases.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and fairness in administrative actions, even when involving transfers of cases, and underlines the necessity for reasoned decisions to maintain the integrity of the process.

Date of Decision: 09.10.2023

State of Bihar and Ors.  vs Amit Lodha and Ors.

                   

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/9-Oct-2023-State_Bihar_Vs_Amit_Lodha.pdf"]

Similar News