Tribunal is not a substitute for High Court

Chapter II: Tribunal is not a substitute for High Court: Deals with S.P. Sampath Kumar’s case and  L. Chandrakumar v/s Union of India case

The tribunals empowered to adjudicate disputes and entertain complaints with respect to service matters.  All other courts except Supreme Court are barred to entertain these cases. Therefore, tribunals do enjoy the same status or are at par with High Court. But a tribunal will not have power to issue writ as power is not given to them.

            The Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar’s case declared that the tribunal is the substitute of High Court and is entitled to exercise the power thereof. The position emerges that the High Court and tribunals are not rival institutions. The tribunals are apart of the jurisdiction of High Court i.e., relating to service matters an appeal cannot lay within the High Court against the order or judgment and as a matter of right before the Supreme Court. But Supreme Court can entertain appeal in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. Hence, the tribunal’s decision is made appealable within the tribunal itself before a large bench as an ordinary employee cannot be accepted to afford the cost of litigation in the Supreme Court, which may sometimes result in the denial of his right to seek justice.

                        But in L. Chandrakumar v/s Union of India case, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier judgment and ruled that power of judiciary vested in the Supreme Court and High courts is constituted part of the basis structure of the constitution and could not be taken away. Now the tribunals are allowed to function as courts of first instance subject to the jurisdiction of High Courts. This down graded the role of tribunals from the substantial role to supplemental role.

                                               There is a condition to invoke tribunals to a civil servant that he should have availed to him under the service rules and he should have locus standi in the subject matter. The Government of India has framed rules for filing an application before Administrative Tribunal that it shall be presented in Form 1 by the applicant in person or by an agent or by a duly authorized advocate to the Registrar or an other officer authorized by the Registrar to received the applications or sent by registered post with acknowledgement only addressed to the Registrar. After the application has been filed, the Registrar or the officer authorized by Registrar shall endorse the date on which it is presented for deemed to have been presented and sign the endorsement. In the scrutiny, any irregularity is found in the application the Registrar may allow the parties to remove in presence. Otherwise he may refuse to register such application with reasons recorded in writing an appeal against the order of Registrar will be filed within fifteen days of such order. Tribunal empowers to regulate its own procedure including fixing of places and times of its enquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or private place.

                      The tribunal can admit evidence, in lieu of any originals document, a copy attested by a gazette of officer. It can avoid oral evidence and evidence on affidavits. No evidence will be taken in the absence of both the parties and hearing will commence when both the parties present.

                                      The person who is aggrieved by an order of the government or its agencies can approach the tribunal within a period of one year from the date on which the delinquent official was penalized and this representation has to be disposed of within the period of six months27. However, delay can be condoned by the tribunal if it is satisfied with sufficient cause. The tribunal shall follow the principles of natural justice. It is empowered to review its own decision and may reject the application of review if it is satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for it such rejected application of review is not appealable. It excludes the jurisdiction of other courts but subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Court and Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136. The grounds for Supreme Court to interfere with the findings are: 

·         The tribunal has acted in excess of jurisdiction or has failed to exercise apparent jurisdiction.

·         It has acted illegally

·          There is an error of law.

·          The order of it is erroneous or has approached the question in a manner liable to result in injustice.

·         It has acted against the principles of natural justice.

No civil servant is to be dismissed or removed without a departmental enquiry. The tribunal has the power of judicial review for the validity of such disciplinary proceeding but power is limited as it cannot change the decision. However, the Supreme Court under equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 enjoys the power to change such decision or opinion of the disciplinary proceedings.

                    For the proper implementation of welfare schemes the tribunals were found to be essential and inevitable. Thus, the tribunal system cannot be inconsistent with rule of law in fact they have become the agencies for ensuring rule of law. 

                                    Before excluding the power of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 over administrative tribunals, a direct access is in fact not provided under Article 136, because the Supreme Court will grant special leave only in special cases. The result is that of the closure of the doors of judiciary in certain matters.  

                                                   The Administrative Tribunals system is surely effective and useful. But it is hardly a substitute for administrative reform, which continues to be pressing need of our developing country. Nor is the Administrative Tribunal intended to replace or supplant the regular governmental system of the country. The Union Public Service Commission must continue to do its work and the departmental promotion committees must continue to meet. The Administrative Tribunal does not and is not intended to interfere, even in the slightest way, in the functioning of the executive. It is only when a complaint is filed that tribunal activates itself and begins moving.

Chapter III: Need to regulate Tribalization in India

Presently, there many tribunals functioning in India and it cannot be listed as exhaustion. The tribunal system is not growing in a direction as it is lacking with far reaching goal. According to existing present status the tribunals are let free to interpret the principles of natural justice as there is no settle definite or uniform norms.