JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

FACULTY OF LAW

ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL : COMPOSITION , POWER
AND ROLE

PRESENTED BY:
NAME: AAMIR RAZA KHAN
ROLL No. : 02
SEMESTER: VI Semester
COURSE: B.A.LLB (Hons.)

1|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. TOPIC Pg. No.

No.

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3

2.  INTRODUCTION 4 - 13
 ESTABLISHMENT
 COMPOSITION
 FUNCTIONING
 POWER
 PROCEDURE OF JUSTICE

4. CONCLUSION 14

2|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project. All that I have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would not
forget to thank them.

I respect and thank Ms. Bhavna Sharma maam, for providing me an opportunity to do the
project and giving me all support and guidance which made me complete the project duly. I
am extremely thankful to her for providing such a nice topic “Administrative tribunal : Its
composition, role and powers” on which I could do a profound research and learnt a lot from
it . I owe my deep gratitude to her as he took keen interest in this project work and guided me
all along.

I would not forget to remember my fellow mates for their encouragement and more over for
their timely support and guidance till the completion of my project work.

I am thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and guidance
from all which helped me in successfully completing this project work.

AAMIR RAZA KHAN

3|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL- ROLE , POWERS AND
COMPOSITION

INTRODUCTION
The Central Administrative Tribunal has been established for adjudication of disputes with
respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or other local authorities within the territory
of India or under the control of Government of India and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. This was done in pursuance of the amendment of Constitution of India by
Articles 323A.

Part XIV-A of the constitution provides for the tribunals. The provision was added through
42nd Amendment Act, 1976. Article 323A and 323B provide for Administrative Tribunals
and Tribunals related to other matters respectively.

Under Article 323A, parliament is empowered to establish administrative tribunals for the
adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service
of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union
or of any state or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the
control of the government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the
government. The Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 enacted by the Parliament authorises
the central government to establish central administrative tribunal and the state administrative
tribunals. 

4|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Establishment of the Tribunal

Chapter-2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deal with the establishment of the
Tribunals and the Benches thereof. The Act envisages setting up of three kinds of
Administrative Tribunals, namely, the Central Administrative Tribunal, the p State
Administrative Tribunals , and the Joint Administrative Tribunals . Furthermore, the Act also
contains provision for constituting a common Bench or Benches of the Central
Administrative Tribunal and a State Administrative Tribunal. It is, however, important to
note that these Tribunals do not constitute a hierarchy of Administrative Tribunals and,
therefore, no appeal lies from a State/Joint Administrative Tribunal to the Central
Administrative Tribunal. They are independent of each other having jurisdiction, powers and
authority over different categories of employees.

The competent authority to establish any Tribunal under the Act is the Central Government.
In so far as the establishment of Administrative Tribunals for the States is concerned the
relevant provisions of the Act are merely enabling and permissive in nature . The Central
Government is empowered to establish a Tribunal for any State on the receipt of a request, in
this behalf, from the State Government concerned. On the face of it, or a literal construction
of the provision of sub-section (5) of section 4 may lead to the conclusion that it is not
obligatory for the Central Government to exercise its power under this sub-section. But, such
a construction cannot be considered to be sound and proper. The word "may" in the context
ought to be interpreted as "shall", thus making it obligatory for the Central Government to
establish a Tribunal for any State if a formal request, to that effect, has been made by the
State Government concerned. There should not be, in principle, any valid reason or
justification for the Central Government to refuse to act and exercise its power when the
establishment of a proposed Tribunal for a State, hardly involves any financial or other
administrative implications to the Central Government.

COMPOSITION OF TRIBUNAL

According to the provisions of section 5(D) of the Act the central Administrative Tribunal is
to be composed of a Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairmen and the Judicial and
Administrative Members, as the Government may, from time to time, deem necessary and

5|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

proper. The Tribunal is, however, contemplated to be divided into several Benches with
Principal Bench in Delhi and Additional Benches at such other places as the Central
Government may, by notification, specify. The entire jurisdiction, powers and authority of the
Tribunal is exercisable by these Benches operating in different parts of the country. Initially,
the Central Administrative Tribunal had its Benches at five placed only including the
Principal Bench at o New Delhi . In the very first batch of writ petitions filed challenging the
vires of the Act, one of the main grounds of challenge was that the establishment of the
Benches of the Tribunal, selectively, at a very few places only would prejudice the parties
whose cases were pending before the respective High Courts located at places other than
these. In view of the assurance given by the Attorney General, on behalf of the Central
Government, that early steps would be taken to set-up a Bench of the Tribunal at the seat of
every High Court, the Supreme Court, by an interim order-7, made on October 31, 1985,
made certain temporary arrangements to meet the working difficulties till such time as new
Benches were established.1

Composition of the Benches : Section 5 of the Act deals, inter alia, with the composition of
the Benches of the Tribunal. It provides for the constitution of the following kinds of the
Benches of the Tribunal.

a) Division Bench 'This is the normal Bench of the Tribunal, ordinarily constituted to
hear and decide all kinds of service disputes which fall within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, except those in respect of which the Chairman is authorised to provide
otherwise. The expression "Division Bench", as such, has not been used anywhere in
the Act but, the nomenclature is adopted here on the analogy of the practice followed
by the Courts to designate a two member Bench of the Court as a Division Bench.
A Division Bench of the Tribunal is constituted under sub-section (2) of section 5 of
the Act. According to the provision of this sub-section a Division Bench must consist
of one judicial Member and one Administrative Member. Prior to its amendment in
1986 ,section 5, however, did not contain any requirement of including a judicial
member in any Bench of the Tribunal, thereby permitting the preponderance of
Administrative Members in a Bench or Benches. The Supreme Court of India took a
very serious note of this flaw in the Act and by the interim order, issued in the

1
Central administrative tribunal, available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-
analysis/central-administrative-tribunal-cat (Last Modified Feb 17, 2020).

6|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 Sampath Kumar v UOI2 case , it directed the Government to provide, by way of
suitable amendment in the Act, for the inclusion of a judicial Member in a Bench of
the Tribunal. In the Court's opinion the proposed amendment was necessary to make
the Tribunal, set up under the Act, a real substitute of the High Court, in service
matters. The presence of a judicial member in a Bench was deemed absolutely
necessary because the service matters, which have been removed from the jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and entrusted to the
Administrative Tribunal set up under the Act, often involve questions of interpretation
and applicability of Articles l4,15,16 and 311 of the Constitution.
These questions require for their determination not only judicial approach but also
knowledge and expertise in this particular branch of Constitutional law. The presence
of Administrative Member would, of course, provide input of practical experience in
the functioning of services and add to the efficiency of the Tribunal but, in the opinion
of the Court, the legal input would undeniably be more important and sacrificing the
legal input or not giving it sufficient weightage, would definitely impair the efficacy
or effectiveness of the Administrative Tribunal as compared to High Court.

b) Larger Bench or Full Bench : Clause (d) of sub-section (5) provides for the
Constitution of a Larger or Full Bench consisting of more than two members to hear
and decide a case or cases in the following situations - (i) If the case falls within the
category or categories of cases specified by the Chairman under any general order
issued by him, in this regard. The Chairman may issue such an order either of his own
or in pursuance of any rules that may be framed by the Central Government in this
connection. It is submitted that there seems to be no need or justification for the
provision enabling the Government to frame rules in this context. It is the Chairman
who, alone, is the more appropriate and competent authority to exercise his judgement
or discretion in this regard. It may be pointed that no such general order has been
issued by the Chairman so far. Neither has the Central Government made any rules in
this regard. (ii) If the Chairman, having regard to the nature of question involved in a
particular case, is of the opinion that it ought to be decided by a Larger Bench of more
than two members, and issues a special order to that effect.

2
(1985) 4 SCC 45

7|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 In Gulab Choudhary Vs. Union of India3 , it was observed by the Cuttak Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal that the constitution of a larger Bench becomes
necessary only when there are conflicting views of two Benches on question of law
and not merely because an important issue is involved. It is important to note here that
a Larger Bench or Full Bench must always include at least one Judicial Member and
one Administrative Member '.
c) Single Member Bench: Sub-section (6) of section 5 provides for a Single Member of
the Tribunal to function as Bench and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority
of the Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such
classes of cases as the Chairman may, by general or special order specify. The
provision is intended to entrust simple cases or routine matters, to the Single-Member
Benches. In exercise of the power under this sub-section a general order has already
been Issued by the Chairman , whereby all members of the central Administrative
Tribunal have been authorised to function as a Bench consisting of single member to
exericse the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of cases
falling in any of the eleven categories specified therein .
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Amulya Chandra Kalita Vs. Union
of India4 has, however, cast some doubts regarding the validity of constituting Single-
Member Benches. In this case an order passed by a Single-Member Bench,
constituted in pursuance of the general order issued by the Chairman, was set-aside
and the Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal 'for disposal in accordance with
law by a Bench properly constituted as required by section 5(2) of the Statute.'
Though a review petition is already pending before the Supreme Court but, in the
light of certain peculiarities of the case, uncertainty exists about the scope and effect
of judgment . It appears that the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 5 and the
order issued by the Chairman thereunder, providing for the constitution of a Single-
Member Bench, were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court.
The fact that the Court did not pronounce any judgement on the point of the validity
of section 5(6) and the order issued by the Chairman, thereunder, leaves open the
question about the validity of the constitution of Single-Member Bench. It may,
however, be submitted that keeping in view the judicial character of the Tribunal it is
essential that a Single Member Bench should always consist of the Judicial Member.

3
(1990) 13 ATC 287.
4
(1991) 1 SCC 181

8|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 However, trival or simple the case or matter may be the requirement of justice must
be met both, in fact and appearance. Hence, an Administrative Member should not be
allowed to sit and function as a Single-Member Bench.
d) Principal Bench: Section 5 of the Act, as originally enacted, maintained a distinction
between the Principal Bench and the Additional Benches. According to the provisions
of sub-section (3) of the unamended section 5, the Bench of the Tribunal for which
the Chairman was appointed as the Presiding Officer was to be known as the Principal
Bench. It was to consist of at least two other member's. The Act did not anywhere lay
the requirement of including a Judicial Member in the Bench. The Act also did not
specify the place where the Principal bench was to sit, rather 22 the matter was left to
the discretion of the Government.
However, after the amendment of the Act in 1986 the old distinction between the
Principal Bench and the Additional Benches has been practically abolished. The only
ground of distinction, based upon their composition, that earlier existed, no longer
holds good, because under the amended provisions of section 5 the composition of all
Benches of the Tribunal are to be similar, that is, one Judicial Member and one
Administrative Member. Even the Chairman or a Vice-Chairman while sitting in any
Bench does so in the capacity of a Judicial Member or the Administrative Member, as
the case may be. He does not enjoy any superior status in the bench. Yet the Act still
retains the expression "Principal Bench" to designate the Bench of the Tribunal sitting
at New Delhi.
e) Additional Bench: The expression "Additional Bench" was originally used in the Act
to refer to any Bench other than the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. It was required
to be presided over by the Vice Chairman and was to consist of at least any two other
members. Thus, the only point of distinction between a Principal Bench and the
Additional Benches was that whereas the Principal Bench was to be presided over by
the Chairman, in all other Benches or Additional Benches, Vice-Chairmen were to act
as the presiding officers. In all other respects they were alike, enjoying the equal
status and exercising similar jurisdiction, power and authority. However, as already
observed, the above distinction between the Principal Bench and an Additional
Bench* based upon their respective Presiding Officers, no longer holds good
subsequent to the Amendment Act of 1986. The Act, in its present form, does not at
all require a Bench to have a Presiding Officer. In fact the expression "Additional
bench" does not, as such, occur in any part of the Act. Of course, in certain

9|ASSIGNMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

 Government notifications J this term has been used in relation to any Bench of the
Tribunal located at any place other than Delhi. A Bench other than the Principal
Bench is now called as the other Bench, or the Bench of the place where it is located,
or the Bench, simpliciter.
f) Circuit Bench: As already observed the Central Administrative Tribunal exercises its
jurisdiction through the Benches which have been set-up in the different parts of the
country. The territorial jurisdiction of these Benches is determined by the Central
Government by issuing the necessary notifications in this 24 regard, from time to
time. At present, the Tribunal has its permanent Benches in seventeen places only.
The jurisdictional 25 limits of these 'Benches extend over vast territories. As many as
six Benches exercise their jurisdiction over the territories of more than one State or
Union Territory. In seven other cases, each bench exercises jurisdiction within the
geographical limits of the respective State or the Union Territory. Uttar Pradesh and
Rajasthan are the only two States in the country which have permanent Benches of the
Tribunal at more than one place.

Functioning and Disposal of cases

 The tribunals were set up to dispose of the cases expeditiously paving the way for
speedy justice for the aggrieved Government employees.
 The total number of cases received on transfer as well as those instituted directly at
various Benches of the Tribunal till 30.06.2006 is 4,76,336, of which the Tribunal has
disposed of 4,51,751 cases leaving a balance of 24585 cases which constitutes
disposal of 94%. Thus CAT justify the aim of the Legislature in setting up the
Administrative Tribunals to provide a speedy, relatively inexpensive and efficacious
remedy to the employees who feel aggrieved.
 For the year 2001 and right up to June, 2006 the overall disposal of cases has
exceeded the number of freshly instituted cases, as a result of which the total
pendency has reduced.
 Where the pendency of cases is on higher side in any Bench, Members are being
deputed from other Benches to that Bench for wiping out the pendency.

Power of the Central Government to make Rules of Procedure

10 | A S S I G N M E N T F O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E L A W
 Though there are certain inherent advantages in the procedural informality of the
Tribunal but, informality is not an overriding necessity or virtue. 5 As rightly observed
in the Franks Committee Report "informality without rules of procedure may be
positively Inimical to right adjudication, since the proceedings may well assume an
unordered character which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Tribunal
to properly sift the facts and weigh the evidence". Hence, a combination of a formal
procedure with an informal atmosphere would invariably constitute an ideal
arrangement. In other words, there ought to be such prescription of procedure as
makes the proceedings clear and orderly without impairing the desired informality of
atmosphere. Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, accordingly, aims
at securing the twin objectives of orderly procedure and informality of atmosphere
before the Tribunals constituted under the Act. With a view to introduce a certain
element of certainty and uniformity and to ensure orderly 5 conduct of the Tribunal
proceedings, the Act empowers the Central Government to prescribe rules of
procedure. But, at the same time, subject to the rules thus framed by the Central
Government the Tribunal is at liberty to regulate its own procedure. In doing so, it
shall, however, be guided by the 4. The Report of the Committee on Administrative
Tribunals and Enquiries, U.K. (1957) . Section 22(1) read with Section 35(e). 241
principles of natural justice .
The rule making power of the Central Government is laid down mainly, in section 35
of the Act. Whereas-, sub-section (1) of this section confers power on the Central
Government, in general and wide terms, to make rules for the purposes of carrying out
the provisions of the Act but, the sub-section (2) contains a specific enumeration of
certain matters [under clauses (a) to (e) ] in respect of which the rules may be so
made. However, this enumeration can only be treated as illustrative and not
exhaustive. In fact, the last clause (f) is residuary in nature and embraces "any other
matter which may be prescribed or in respect of which rules are required to be made
by the Central Government". It may be noticed that under clause (e) of this sub-
section the Central Government is expressly empowered to make "rules subject to
which a Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure under sub-section
(.1) of section. 22" and for "any additional matters in respect of which a Tribunal may
exercise the powers of a civil Court under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of section 22".

5
CAT, available at: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/central-administrative-tribunal-
1437974520-1 (last visited on Mar 23, 2020).

11 | A S S I G N M E N T F O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E L A W
 The Central Government may exercise its powers of making procedural rules for the
Tribunal subject to the provisions of chapter IV of the Act dealing with the
"Procedure". The provisions of this chapter lay down broad principles or guidelines
subject to which rules may be prescribed by the Government.
The Act, however, does not contemplate laying down an exhaustive code of procedure
for the Tribunal. The rule-making power of the Central Government, in this regard, is
intended to be exercised, in a restricted manner, to prescribe broad guidelines or
general principles governing procedure so as to ensure some uniformity and certainty
in the conduct of its proceedings by the Tribunal. For, as already observed, in the
absence of any such prescription of rules, the Tribunal's proceedings may assume an
unordered character, which would not only affect the quality of justice, to be rendered
by it but, may also shake the confidence of the litigating parties in the very system of
the administration of justice by the Tribunals. Yet, at the same time, the Tribunal must
be allowed some freedom of action in evolving its own procedure, unhampered by
any rules, so that its proceedings do not assume mythical air of extreme formalism to
be found to exist in a Court room.

POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REGULATE ITS OWN PROCEDURES

As already observed one of the main beneficial features of the administration of

justice by Tribunals, is the simplicity or informality of their procedure. The
Administrative Tribunals set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 are
not bound to follow the technical rules of procedure and evidence contained in the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Subject to the
provisions of the Act and the rules framed by the Cental Government in this regard,
the Tribunal can regulate its own procedure. The Tribunal can, for example, base its
decision not only on the facts which are on the record of the case but, also on facts
which actually happened in the case. The Tribunal, is, by and large, free to rely on any
information it may receive, provided it discloses the information, to provide the party
concerned an opportunity to rebute the validity of the information against him. In
Y.K.Gupta Vs. Engineer-in- Chief 6it was held by the Tribunal that its procedure need
not necessarily be adversary but, may even be inquisitorial. But, in any case the
6
(1986) 1 ATC 457 (N. Delhi)

12 | A S S I G N M E N T F O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E L A W
 requirements of the natural justice must always be met with by the Tribunal in the
conduct of its proceedings.

PROCEDURE OF JUSTICE
 The Tribunal is not bound to follow the procedures laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 or Evidence Act, but shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice in deciding cases and the procedure.
 The Central Administrative Tribunal is empowered to prescribe its own rules of
practice for discharging its functions subject to the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 and Rules made there under. For this purpose, the Central Administrative
Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 have been made.
 Parties to the dispute may appear in person or be represented by a lawyer before the
Tribunal. The Supreme Court has held in a case that the CAT must confine itself to
the limits of judicial review.
 No interim orders, whether by way of injunction or stay shall be made on an
application unless copy of the application along with other documents are furnished to
the party against whom such application is made and opportunity is given to such
party to be heard in the matter.
 However ex-parte interim orders can be issued in exceptional cases valid for 14 days.
In this case the administration should approach Central Administrative Tribunal
within 14 days to put across their point of view and try for vacation of such interim
stay orders.

13 | A S S I G N M E N T F O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E L A W
 CONCLUSION

After the establishment of the Tribunal in 1985, it received 13,350 pending cases on
transfer from the High Courts and subordinate Courts under section 29 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Since its inception in 1985 to 31st July, 2018
about 7,79,101 cases were instituted in the Tribunal. Out of those 7,27,818 cases have
already been disposed of. That is a disposal rate of 93.41%. The Administrative
Tribunal is distinguishable from the ordinary courts with regard to its jurisdiction and
procedure. The procedural simplicity of the Act can be appreciated from the fact that
an aggrieved government employee can also appear personally before the Tribunal.
Thus, the Tribunal has duly justified its creation through speedy and inexpensive
disposal of pending cases. The Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice
in deciding cases and is not bound by the procedure, prescribed by the Civil
Procedure Code. The Central Administrative Tribunal is empowered to frame its own
rules of procedure and practice. Under the said provision of the Act, the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and Central Administrative Tribunal
Rules of Practice, 1993 have been notified to ensure smooth functioning if the
Tribunal. It exercises jurisdiction only in relation to the service matters of the parties
covered by the Act. It is also free from the shackles of many of the technicalities of
the ordinary Courts.

14 | A S S I G N M E N T F O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E L A W
15 | A S S I G N M E N T F O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E L A W