9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 214 - HC - Central Excise
Issues involved: The issue in this case involves the authority of the President of the Tribunal to supervise the work of other Members and write the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
Summary: The Writ Petition was filed by the Secretary (Revenue), Government of India seeking to quash the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 763 of 2002, which set aside adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the first respondent, a Member (Judicial) of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. The adverse remarks were made by the President of the Tribunal, Mr. Justice K. Sreedharan, leading to the first respondent challenging them through the Tribunal. The Writ Petition challenged the Tribunal's decision to expunge the remarks from the ACR. The main contention of the Addl. Central Government standing Counsel was that the President had the authority to make the adverse remarks in the ACR, and the Tribunal erred in setting them aside. On the other hand, the first respondent's counsel argued that there was discrimination in handling similar cases, and the President did not have the power to write ACRs for other Members of the Tribunal. Upon examination of the relevant Rules governing the recruitment and conditions of service of Tribunal Members, the Court found that there was no provision of law enabling the President to write ACRs for other Members. The Court noted that the absence of any specific provision granting such authority to the President indicated that the adverse remarks were made without legal basis. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the Department of Personnel and Training clarified that there was no system of reviewing ACRs of Tribunal Members. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision that the President lacked the authority to write ACRs for Members of the Tribunal. As there was no legal basis for the adverse remarks, the Court upheld the Tribunal's order to expunge them from the first respondent's ACR. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
|
