Single Administrative Member Can Decide Minor Penalty Cases: Calcutta High Court Recalls Its Own Ruling, Upholds Jurisdiction of CAT Member Sitting Alone

“Public employment disputes involving minor penalties do not always need two-member benches. If no constitutional interpretation is involved, a Single Member — even an Administrative one — can decide them.” - In a notable self-correction, the Calcutta High Court reversed its earlier finding that an Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) sitting alone could not decide an original application. The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, allowing Review Application RVW 376 of 2024, held that their earlier judgment dated November 11, 2024, in WPCT 221 of 2024 contained a legal error.

The Bench, in a detailed analysis, held that under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and in light of notifications issued by the CAT Chairman, an Administrative Member is empowered to adjudicate certain classes of cases alone — including cases of minor penalties in disciplinary proceedings.

“We did not take into consideration such aspects of the matter while we had passed the order under review dated November 11, 2024… The original application did not involve interpretation of a statutory provision or rule in relation to the Constitution.”

“Chairman Has Power to Assign Matters to Single Members – And Notifications Make That Clear”
The Court accepted the submission of the Union of India and the Deputy Registrar of CAT that the Tribunal Chairman had specifically authorized Single Members to hear cases relating to minor penalties, as per notifications dated September 10, 2021, and September 8, 2016.

“Section 5(6) does not distinguish between a Judicial or Administrative Member — the term used is ‘Member’, which includes both, as well as the Chairman.”

“Read with Rule 18(c) and Appendix-I of the CAT Rules of Practice, 1993, it is evident that the Tribunal has lawful power to post such cases before Single Member Benches.”

“L. Chandra Kumar Judgment Supports This Interpretation”
The Court clarified that its earlier reliance on two coordinate Bench decisions was misplaced, as those did not fully engage with the constitutional framework clarified in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261. The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar upheld Section 5(6) of the Act but added that cases involving interpretation of constitutional provisions must go to a two-member bench.

“Where no such constitutional question arises — and the case is purely about disciplinary proceedings involving minor penalty — a Single Member can validly decide the matter.”

“The test to be applied is whether the case falls within the notified category for Single Member Benches, and whether it involves constitutional interpretation. If not, Section 5(6) fully authorizes such adjudication.”

“Even a Non-Party Can Seek Review If Their Legal Rights Are Affected”

Another important facet of the judgment was the Court’s holding that the Deputy Registrar of CAT, though not a party to the original case, could seek review. The Court held that the order under review curtailed the statutory powers of the CAT Chairman, and therefore, any person aggrieved — even if not a formal party — could move for review under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC.

“The order had every potential of curtailing the powers of the Chairman… such affectation of right justifies the review application.”

“Our Earlier Order Was Based on a Misreading — It Must Be Set Aside in the Interest of Justice”

The original application before CAT, filed by Shri Bachan Pandey, had challenged disciplinary proceedings and a minor penalty of ₹22.49 lakh recovery. It was allowed by a Single Administrative Member, which the High Court had initially quashed solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

However, on review, the Court ruled: “The original application could be heard by the Single Member… The case does not involve any interpretation of the Constitution or statutes requiring a larger bench.”

Accordingly, the Court recalled its November 11, 2024 judgment, directed that WPCT 221 of 2024 be restored for hearing on merits, and listed it for final disposal in the April 2025 list.

“We erred in holding that a Single Member could not decide the case. The CAT Chairman had legally empowered such adjudication. The order is recalled.”

Date of Decision: April 7, 2025