HC directs Centre to examine allegations made by petitioners against M Nagrajan within six weeks
The Gujarat High Court has directed the central government to look into allegations against a judicial member of the Central Administrative Tribunal-Ahmedabad (CAT-Ahmedabad).
The first division bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Vipul Pancholi, through a common order on two petitions, has ordered the central government to examine the petitioners' allegations against M Nagrajan of CAT-Ahmedabad within six weeks of the order and directed that if it finds substance in the allegations, it should report to the registrar general of the Principal Bench- CAT-Delhi and constitute an inquiry committee.
Two petitioners — practicing advocate Sunita Chaturvedi and All India Radio employee Ravindra Parmar — had approached the High Court for protection.
Advocate Sunita's counsel KK Shah's submission is that the judicial member was acting as judge and lawyer by changing an entire plea and then presiding on it. Therefore, matters that were before the division bench were being now being decided upon by him as a single bench judge.
Counsel cited an example, "In one case against the Railways, instead of allowing or rejecting the petition, he directed the authority not to operate the Scheme for Guaranteed Employment of Safety Staff (LARSGEES).
When the said order was challenged before the High Court, the latter passed stricture against the judicial member."
Meanwhile, AIR employee Ravindra Parmar's allegation against the judicial member was that he was partial, autocratic and acts in a vengeful manner.
His prayer was to constitute another bench and transfer his service matter before it. He was transferred 10 times by his AIR department, and that he had challeged the last transfer order before the court.
During the course of hearing, the High Court had reprimanded the central government for not complying with its order. The court directed the central government to conduct an independent inquiry and submit a report before the court, instead it simply played role of messenger by submitting CAT deputy registrar's report.
CENTRE DIRECTION
- During the course of hearing, the High Court had reprimanded the central government for not complying with its order. The court directed the central government to conduct an independent inquiry and submit a report before the court, instead it simply played role of messenger by submitting CAT deputy registrar’s report.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Gujarat High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}