TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances that in both the parts of order though duly signed by both the members of Tribunal. There is no dessentment recorded in their respective part, may be first part or second part. But in the second part, judicial member has concurred with the view of administrative member irrespective of his earlier part of view for allowing of the application, which is also signed by the administrative member. Hence, we find that both the parts of order are / and can be read comprising of only one common order and self contradiction are apparent on the face of it. If both the parts are simultaneously pronounced, one for allowing of the application and another for dismissal of the application, it is not possible for us to accept the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. But the relevant aspects are that the petitioner preferred application before the Tribunal with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 20.8.2015 and hence, she also prayed to direct the respondents to restore seniority position of the applicant with effect from 9.5.1988. The said application was heard by the Tribunal and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was last heard in February, 2016 and the order was reserved. Thereafter, the impugned order is passed by the Tribunal. Under circumstances, the present petitions before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr.B.M.Shyam Prasad, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.P.B.Ajit, for the petitioner and Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned advocate appearing for res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir reasons and conclusions by separate order. Whereas, while simultaneously signing both the parts of order one for allowing the application and another for dismissal of application, the aforesaid note made by the judicial member comes on record. 7. At this stage, we wish to record that there are two conflicting views of the members of bench, one for allowing the application and another for dismissal. For any descanting views between two members of the Tribunal may be judicial or may be administrative, the view expressed by the respective member will be signed by the said member only and it may not be signed by the other member, who has recorded dessent note. But ofcourse when both dessent views are recorded, the third portion of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any other reason by any one of the Members of the Bench who heard the case, it shall be deemed to have been released from part-heard and listed afresh for hearing. 9. Aforesaid operation of Rules 106 and 107 presupposes the unanimity in the ultimate operative portion of the order, such would not apply if there is disagreement or dessent view for allowing or dismissal of the application between two members of the Bench. It is only when there is unanimity amongst the member, the pronouncement of the order by one member of the Bench may be made on behalf of the Bench or upon the authority so assigned for pronouncement of the order. But in case of disagreement or dessenting views ultimately leading to different operative conclusion, such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also makes it clear that if the members of the Bench differ in opinion or any point, if there is a majority of the opinion, such majority may prevail but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and make a reference to the Chairman who shall either hear the point or points himself and refer the case for hearing by one or more of the other members to the Tribunal and thereafter, as per the majority view, matter shall be decided including the views of earlier members who heard the matter. It is hardly required to be stated that Section 26 shall march over the procedure stipulated for pronouncement of order by Rules 106 and 107 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed by the administrative member. Hence, we find that both the parts of order are / and can be read comprising of only one common order and self contradiction are apparent on the face of it. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner did contend that the first part of order could be said as only order of Tribunal and the second part of order could be said as without any authority and competent since Tribunal had become functus officio and therefore, he contended that petitioner is aggrieved by the second part of order, which is for dismissal of the application before the Tribunal. 14. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is not a matter where after pronouncement of the first part of the order at the later stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
