9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust and faith inter-se, ought to be foreign to each segment of dispensation of justice which (system), for optimum and unbiased delivery requires an ambience based upon balanced and conscientious approach. For reasons of propriety, we are not noticing any part of the mutual acrimony as between the personnel who are a part of the dispensation at the local Bench of ITAT. We, though without sounding accusatory in any manner, express our deep sense of exasperation at the prevalent scenario. We hope and trust that the sentiments expressed by the President of the ITAT in the course of his letter dated 4.1.2012 for ensuring bonhomie at the local Bench of the ITAT, would be pursued to its logical conclusion. 2. The applicant is an Accountant Member of the ITAT, Chandigarh who, having joined the employment aforementioned on 25.8.2003, came to be transferred to the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench on 25.10.2010. He has been, vide order Annexure A-I dated 23.1.2012, ordered to be transferred to the Rajkot Bench of the ITAT. The transfer is indicated to have been ordered "in public interest". 3' The applicant has applied for the invalidation of the impugned transfer order by averring that it is puniti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant and another Member, had taken a contrary view in the course of their decision announced on 26.12.2011. The plea made is that it was inappropriate on the part of the applicant to retain the draft judgment (forwarded by her) till 30.12.2011 and, then, to return it with endorsement dated 30.12.2011 to the effect that a contrary view had been taken by a Coordinate Bench in the matter of other bunch on 26.12.2011. 8. The applicant has not been able to deny the retention of the draft judgment for the indicated duration. He has, however, averred that since the two Benches had granted identical orders on similar issues, no impropriety in the note dated 30.12.2011 could be. attributed to him. The further plea, raised in the context, is that it is the action on the part of the private respondent which shows that "there was something extra judicial in her mind which was coming from the very beginning as stated in the OA." 9. (Initial arguments in the matter had been heard by one of us, S.D. Anand (J), sitting singly. However, vide order dated 14.2.2012, the matter was ordered to be listed before a DB in view of the fact that the issue involved had larger connotation). 10. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is uncontroverted, we do not feel called upon to quote a number of judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for respondents during the course of hearing in support of the legal proposition aforementioned. 12. In the present case, the impugned order came about in pursuance of a consideration by the collegium of the Tribunal which consisted of the President of the Tribunal and two Vice Presidents thereof. Though the applicant has found fault with the association of the Vice President of the Tribunal at Delhi with the collegium on an averment that he had dealt with the complaint made by Respondent No.4 against the applicant, there is not even an iota of averment to indicate any bias on part of the President or the other Vice President who considered the matter and recommended transfer of the applicant from Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal to the Rajkot Bench. 13. Further plea raised on behalf of the applicant is that the impugned order having come about on the basis of a complaint, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to grant an opportunity of a hearing to him. 14. The insistence upon the grant of an opportunity of a hearing in a transfer matter was adversely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t officer to which he would have a right to reply. In the very nature of things the reply shall have to -be considered and in case the reply given by the person concerned requires facts to be established, evidence shall have to be recorded. A right of hearing has not to be an empty formality and if the said right of hearing involves a lengthy procedure which procedure in fact is already in offing by way of proceedings against the officer in a departmental inquiry then in a given case the right of hearing might go on till such time the inquiry is pending against the officer. If, therefore, we stress the right of hearing a little further and in the manner indicated above in order to test the plausibility of such right to be given or not then it necessarily involves finding of facts by the competent authority by arriving at a conclusion which in the nature of things cannot be done without recording evidence. The procedure of hearing, therefore, taken to its logical end, in my view would frustrate the very purpose of transferring officer against whom the complaints are pending and or which complaints the employee wants to make a regular inquiry. The facts of the present case would go t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we would not comment upon the averment on behalf of Private Respondent No.4 that the applicant purposely retained the announcement in this case in abeyance in order to be able to take a different view as a Member of the other Bench, the fact of retention of the draft judgment dated 4.11.2011 upto 30.12.2011 cannot be wished away and there was no understandable logical reason therefor. A perusal of the extraction in the course of Para 10 of this order would indicate the procedure to be adopted by a Member who wishes to dissent from a draft judgment. It was open to the applicant to record a judgment of dissent and forward it to Private Respondent No.4. The matter would have been, thereafter, dealt with in accordance with the procedure indicated in the extraction. Forwarding of note dated 30.12.2011 by the applicant to Private Respondent No.4 was not appropriate. 18. In our system of dispensation of justice, the law makers have made certain categories of cases cognizable by a Single Bench; while others have been made cognizable by a Division Bench. The extracted instructions/ formulation also indicate the methodology to be adopted in case of difference of opinion between the Members ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
