Central Administrative Tribunal Can’t Hold Judgment Of High Court To Be Per Incuriam: Delhi HC
The Appeal before the Delhi High Court was filed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the order whereby the appointment of a Multi Tasking Staff was cancelled.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that it is not open to the Tribunal to characterise a judgment of a High Court as per incuriam.
The Appeal before the High Court was filed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the order whereby the appointment of a Multi Tasking Staff appointment was cancelled.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said, “...we reiterate that the Tribunal cannot hold a judgment of the High Court to be per incuriam.”
CGSC Vineet Dhanda represented the Appellant while Advocate Sachin Chauhan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appointment of the respondent to the post of Multi Tasking in the office of the petitioners was cancelled by an order issued in the year 2021 as an FIR was registered under Sections 148,149,307,323,324,452 & 506 of the IPC against the Respondent and he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent moved to the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was the specific stand of the respondent that his acquittal was honourable, though the Judicial Magistrate First Class styled the acquittal as on “benefit of doubt”. The Tribunal allowed his application and set aside the order whereby the respondent’s appointment was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India filed an appeal before the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the basis for cancellation of the respondent's appointment as MTS was only that his acquittal by the JMFC was on the benefit of doubt and could not, therefore, be treated as an honourable acquittal. The petitioners had relied on a judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in Deputy Supdt. of Police v W.D. Sekaran (2024).
The Tribunal observed that the said judgment had to be treated as having been rendered in personam, and it was per incuriam as it was contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court.
“In our view, it is not open to the Tribunal to characterise a judgment of a High Court as per incuriam. No doubt, if the Tribunal has, before it, judgments of the Supreme Court which enunciate the law differently from the manner in which the High Court has, it would be open to the Tribunal to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court in preference to that of the High Court. However, we reiterate that the Tribunal cannot hold a judgment of the High Court to be per incuriam”, the Bench said.
The Tribunal had emphasized the fact that the respondent had disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Bench held that this factor was of no relevance, as the cancellation of respondent’s appointment was not for failure on his part to disclose the existence of the criminal case, but on the ground that the criminal case did not end in an honourable acquittal.
The High Court mentioned that the Tribunal has correctly cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v State of Rajasthan (2024) which deals with the duty of a Court, when faced with a judgment of acquittal, and which holds that, in such circumstances, the Court is not to be carried away by the use of the expression “benefit of doubt” employed by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused, but has to examine the judgment of acquittal holistically to conclude, for itself, whether the acquittal was in fact honourable or otherwise.
Thus, quashing the order of the Tribunal, the Bench remanded the matter to the CAT for re-visiting the issue.
Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Chand Singh [Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:782-DB]
Appearance:
Appellant: CGSC Vineet Dhanda, Advocates Akansha Choudhary, Shweta Shandilya Saksham Sethi
Respondent: Advocate Sachin Chauhan
