Mahitap Singh Bisht v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Report submitted to this Court by Sh.R.K.Shori, Technical Director NIC has been received.

2. Record of OA No.82/2013 and OA No.274/2013 which was requisitioned from the Central Administrative Tribunal has been received. The record would reveal that being filed at different points of time the two ^ Original Applications came to be listed before the Tribunal on February 12, 2013, on which date both Original Applications were listed for completion of pleadings on March 06, 2013. On March 06, 2013 both Original Applications were listed for final hearing under the category of: 'Readyfor Hearing Matters'. By said date pleadings were completed. Thereafter, at joint request of parties both Original Applications were listed for hearing on March 20, 2013. There is no order sheet in the file signed by the learned Members of the Bench on March 20, 2013.

3. The controversy pertains to the fact whether or not on March 20, 2013 ^ the learned Members of the Bench comprising Mr.G.George Paracken, Member (J) and Dr.Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) heard arguments in the two Original Applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner who was the claimant before the Tribunal asserts to the fact that on March 20, 2013 arguments concluded in both Original Applications and an oral judgment was pronounced. As per the petitioner both Original Applications were allowed.

4. The order sheet would reveal that on April 11, 2013 an order was passed recording that two Original AppHcations were listed at Item No.1 W.P. (C) 6198/2013 &W.P. (C) 6199/2013 Page 2of[6] jif Vc 6? under the caption: 'For Being Spoken\ which we are given to understand means: 'For Directions''. The order records that the two Original Applications were directed to be listed for further hearing on April 22, 2013. On said date due to paucity of time, as recorded in the order sheet the Original Applications were adjourned for April 25, 2013. Order dated April 25, 2013 would reveal that the matter was re-heard and orders were resei"ved. Thereafter, a common judgment was pronounced on September 13,2013.

5. On the subject of whether arguments concluded and decision was ^ pronounced on March 20, 2013, in the absence of anything recorded in the order sheet, since in the petition on oath it has been pleaded that decision was pronounced onMarch 20, 2013, wehad directed Sh.R.K.Shori Director Technical NIC attached to the Delhi High Court to access the computers in the Secretariat of Mr.G.George Paracken, Member (J) and Dr.Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) of the Central Administrative Tribunal and from the DAT file find out whether there was a log of a file or a folder pertaining ^ to OA No.82/2013 and OA No.274/2013. If yes, the print out of the ' \ file/folder was to be generated. Report has been filed. Along with the report a print out of the order dated March 20, 2013 has been filed which evidences that by an oral order dated March 20, 2013 both Original Applications were allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that once the Original Applications were allowed the Members of the Tribunal became functus officio.

7. Now, the law is clear. If a decision is pronounced in Court orally, but W.P. (C) 6198/2013 &W.P.(C) 6199/2013 Page 3 of[6] ) \ while correcting the same if the Bench or the Court concerned realized an error that does not mean that the Court or the Bench has become functus officio. Before the decision is signed, corrective action can be taken. But, the same has to be with transparency. The parties have to be intimated of said fact. The matter has to be shown in the cause list for directions. The point on which a doubt arises or a fact which went unnoticed at the earlier stage has to be brought to thenotice of the counsel concerned. Said fact has to be recorded in the order sheet. Thereafter the matter could be re-heard.

8. In the instant case we fmd that the Tribunal has not shown the ^ transparency as aforesaid. It is apparent that after dictating the order dated March 20, 2013, before the Members of the Tribunal signed the same, they had secondthoughts. This is reflected in the fact that the ordersheets would reveal the existence of the order dated April 11, 2013. But, the Tribunal ought to have recorded an order as of March 20, 2013 to the effect that after they have pronounced the order in Court and before it was signed by them, as they were correcting the order they had second thoughts, which needs a ^ clarification on some points. ^ 9. Under the circumstances it has to be held that the Bench did not become ftinctus officio.

10. Flowever, that is not the end of the matter.

11. It pains us to note that the arguments noted as also the decisions noted while allowing the two Original Applications as are found reflected in the printout of the order dated March 20, 2013 (obtained fi-om the computers of the Secretariat of the Central Administrative Tribunal) have not been noted much less refen'edtoin the impugned decision pronounced on September W.P. (C) 6198/2013 &W.P.(C) 6199/2013 Page 4of[6]

1 A 13, 2013. Further, a host ofjudgments have been noted in the order dated September 13, 2013 which do not find a mention in the transcript ofwhat was dictated orally in Court on March 20, 2013. Regretfully, the contentions in favour of the petitioner which have been noted, along with relevant case law, in the order dated March 20, 2013, which has ultimately not then signed by the Members ofthe Bench, do not find even a whisper in the decision dated September 13, 2013.

12. Accordingly, the only way out is to quash the decision dated f September 13, 2013 for the reason it omits to note the contentions and the decisions relied upon by the petitioner.

13. We do so. Impugned decision dated September 13, 2013 dismissing OA No.82/2013 and OA No.274/2013 is set aside. Both Original Applications are restored with a direction that the two shall be placed before a Bench of which neither Mr.G.George Paracken, Member (J) nor Dr.Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A) would be members of We would request the Chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal to preferably ^ ^ hearthe two Original Applications in aBenchwhich comprises the Hon'ble Chairperson.

14. We would expect a decision within this calendar year.

15. The two writ petitions stand disposed of.