# Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 170
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 602 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-brajendra-singh-chauhan-v-central-administrative-tribunal-ors-51756
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Contempt Jurisdiction - Maintainability
of
Writ
Petition
Against
Tribunal's
Contempt Orders - Petitioners challenged
the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated
20.10.2023, which closed contempt proceedings
for alleged non-compliance with its earlier order
dated 10.05.2022 - Held, under Section 17 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
orders passed by the Tribunal in contempt
proceedings are appealable only to the Supreme
Court within 60 days, and no writ petition is
maintainable before the High Court under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, as per T.
Sudhakar Prasad Vs Government of A.P. - The
writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.
(Paras 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 21)

B. Administrative Tribunals - Contempt
Powers and Jurisdiction - The Central
Administrative Tribunal, under Section 17 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has the
same jurisdiction to punish for contempt as a
High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, with references to "High Court" construed
as "Tribunal" - Held, this power is derived from
Article 323-A(2)(b) of the Constitution, and the
Tribunal's contempt orders are distinct from its
regular orders under Section 14, as the former
are appealable only to the Supreme Court, not
subject to High Court's judicial review under
Articles 226/227, per L. Chandra Kumar Vs
U.O.I.. (Paras 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17)

C. Judicial Review - Scope Over Tribunal's
Contempt Orders - Petitioners sought to
invoke High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226
to challenge the Tribunal's closure of contempt
proceedings - Held, the High Court's judicial
review under Articles 226/227 is limited to
matters
under
Section
14
of
the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and does
not extend to contempt orders under Section
17, which are exclusively appealable to the
Supreme Court - The Tribunal's contempt
jurisdiction
is
supplemental,
not
substitutional, to the High Court's powers
under Article 215, as clarified in T. Sudhakar
Prasad and L. Chandra Kumar . (Paras 11,
13, 15, 16, 20)

D. Compliance with Tribunal's Orders -
Contempt Proceedings - The Tribunal's
order
dated
10.05.2022
directed
regularization of petitioners as Assistant
Medical Officers from their initial appointment
date as Short Term Medical Officers, with
notional service benefits but no salary arrears
-
Held,
the
Tribunal
found
substantial
compliance by the respondents' order dated
19.04.2023, which regularized petitioners and
granted notional service benefits, and closed
contempt proceedings - The petitioners' claim
for additional benefits like notional seniority
and promotions was not expressly directed by
the
Tribunal's
order,
and
no
willful
disobedience was established. (Paras 2, 3, 13,
14)

E. Statutory Interpretation - Contempt
Appeals and Tribunal's Role - The
Administrative
Tribunals
Act,
1985,
and
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, create a
distinct framework for contempt appeals -
Held, Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act,
read
with
Section
17
of
the
Administrative
Tribunals
Act,
explicitly
provides for appeals from Tribunal's contempt
orders to the Supreme Court, excluding intraTribunal appeals or High Court review - The
Tribunal, while exercising contempt powers,
remains subject to High Court's supervisory
jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 for non-
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
171
contempt matters, but contempt orders are
insulated from such review, as per R. Mohajan
Vs Shefali Sengupta . (Paras 10, 17, 19, 20)

 Writ
Petition
Dismissed
as
NonMaintainable.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,890 of 53,022. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39890 for what follows._

170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 4 ILRA 170
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 602 of 2024

Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan ...Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Contempt Jurisdiction - Maintainability
of
Writ
Petition
Against
Tribunal's
Contempt Orders - Petitioners challenged
the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated
20.10.2023, which closed contempt proceedings
for alleged non-compliance with its earlier order
dated 10.05.2022 - Held, under Section 17 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
orders passed by the Tribunal in contempt
proceedings are appealable only to the Supreme
Court within 60 days, and no writ petition is
maintainable before the High Court under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, as per T.
Sudhakar Prasad Vs Government of A.P. - The
writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.
(Paras 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 21)

B. Administrative Tribunals - Contempt
Powers and Jurisdiction - The Central
Administrative Tribunal, under Section 17 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has the
same jurisdiction to punish for contempt as a
High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, with references to "High Court" construed
as "Tribunal" - Held, this power is derived from
Article 323-A(2)(b) of the Constitution, and the
Tribunal's contempt orders are distinct from its
regular orders under Section 14, as the former
are appealable only to the Supreme Court, not
subject to High Court's judicial review under
Articles 226/227, per L. Chandra Kumar Vs
U.O.I.. (Paras 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17)

C. Judicial Review - Scope Over Tribunal's
Contempt Orders - Petitioners sought to
invoke High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226
to challenge the Tribunal's closure of contempt
proceedings - Held, the High Court's judicial
review under Articles 226/227 is limited to
matters
under
Section
14
of
the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and does
not extend to contempt orders under Section
17, which are exclusively appealable to the
Supreme Court - The Tribunal's contempt
jurisdiction
is
supplemental,
not
substitutional, to the High Court's powers
under Article 215, as clarified in T. Sudhakar
Prasad and L. Chandra Kumar . (Paras 11,
13, 15, 16, 20)

D. Compliance with Tribunal's Orders -
Contempt Proceedings - The Tribunal's
order
dated
10.05.2022
directed
regularization of petitioners as Assistant
Medical Officers from their initial appointment
date as Short Term Medical Officers, with
notional service benefits but no salary arrears
-
Held,
the
Tribunal
found
substantial
compliance by the respondents' order dated
19.04.2023, which regularized petitioners and
granted notional service benefits, and closed
contempt proceedings - The petitioners' claim
for additional benefits like notional seniority
and promotions was not expressly directed by
the
Tribunal's
order,
and
no
willful
disobedience was established. (Paras 2, 3, 13,
14)

E. Statutory Interpretation - Contempt
Appeals and Tribunal's Role - The
Administrative
Tribunals
Act,
1985,
and
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, create a
distinct framework for contempt appeals -
Held, Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act,
read
with
Section
17
of
the
Administrative
Tribunals
Act,
explicitly
provides for appeals from Tribunal's contempt
orders to the Supreme Court, excluding intraTribunal appeals or High Court review - The
Tribunal, while exercising contempt powers,
remains subject to High Court's supervisory
jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 for non-
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
171
contempt matters, but contempt orders are
insulated from such review, as per R. Mohajan
Vs Shefali Sengupta . (Paras 10, 17, 19, 20)

 Writ
Petition
Dismissed
as
NonMaintainable.

List of Cases cited:

1. T. Sudhakar Prasad Vs Government of A.P.,
(2001) 1 SCC 516

2. L. Chandra Kumar Vs U.O.I., (1997) 3 SCC
261

3. R. Mohajan Vs Shefali Sengupta, (2012) 4
SCC 761

4. S.P. Sampath Kumar Vs U.O.I., (1987) ILLJ
128 SC

5. Supreme Court Bar Association Vs U.O.I.,
(1998) 4 SCC 409

6. St. of Orissa Vs Bhagaban Sarangi, (1995) 1
SCC 399

7. T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of
India Vs U.O.I., 1994 (1) SCALE 7

(Delivered by Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have approached
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench Allahabad, by invoking
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act 1971"). The petitioners have filed
original application no.1427 of 2018 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal and the
same was disposed of vide order dated
10.05.2022
with
the
following
observations:

"9. In view of the facts and
circumstances as discussed above, the
present original application is allowed with
a direction to the Competent Authority
amongst the respondents to issue orders
forthwith, in any case not later than a
period of twelve weeks from the date of this
order giving appointment to the applicants
as regular Assistant Medical Officers with
effect from the date on which they were
initially appointed as Short Term Medical
Officer.

10. While the applicant shall be
entitled to all the consequential benefits as
a result of this Order, they shall have no
claim over any arrears of salary and
allowances, etc. The benefit of the service
rendered by them as STMOs till 16.09.2015
shall be awarded to them only on notional
basis."

3. For non-compliance of the above
order, the petitioners have approached the
Tribunal by filing the contempt petition and
the same was numbered as 48 of 2023 in
original application no.1427 of 2018. The
said
contempt
application
has
been
disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2023
with the following observations:

12. Simple reading of the para 10
of the order of the Tribunal,which mentions
of consequential benefit, cannot be read
beyond the wordings of the order as all
consequential benefits are as per rules and
entitlement and nothing more or less can be
given to the petitioners. We fail to read
within the order if there is any express
direction, which confers any benefit of
seniority and other consequential benefit of
out of turn promotion to the petitioners vide
order dated 10.05.2022. The respondents
have finally issued regularization order
dated 19.04.2023 in compliance of the
order dated 10.05.2022 and it is noted that
similar benefit, as has been extended to the
petitioners, has been granted to other
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Medical Officers, who initially joined as
Short Terms Medical Officers and were
subsequently
regularized
on
recommendations of the UPSC as AMOs at
a later date and these Medical Officers are
deemed to be in service from the date of
their first appointment and the break being
ignored and shall be treated as leave to
which these Medical Officers may be
entitled to or as Extra Ordinary Leave
without pay, if there is no leave in credit.
Seniority of the Medical Officers will,
however, count with effect from the date of
their regular appointment as Assistant
Medical Officer.

13. We have seen the order dated
19.04.2023 passed by the respondents,
which is annexed at page 28 of the counter
affidavit, regarding counting of past
service, grant of condonation of break,
increments, etc in respect of Short Term
Medical
Officer
(STMOs)
regularized
following judgment of this Tribunal, we are
satisfied that substantial compliance of the
order of this Tribunal dated 10.05.2022
passed in OA No. 1427/2018 has been
made and there is nothing on record which
show anything contrary to this.

14. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, this court is of the view that
sufficient compliance has been made and
we do not find any wilful disobedience of
the direction of this Tribunal on the part of
the respondents. Therefore, no further
proceeding is required and the contempt
proceeding
is
liable
to
be
closed.
Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is
closed, the notices are discharged and the
respondents are discharged from their
liabilities. All associated pending MAs
stand disposed off"

4. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have filed the present writ
petition with the following prayers:

(i) To issue writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.10.2023
passed
by
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
in
Civil
Misc.
Contempt
Application No.48 of 2023, Dr. Brajendra
Singh Chauhan and others Vs. Sri Giridhar
Aramane
and
another,
in
Original
Application
No.1427
of
2018,
Dr.
Brajendra Singh Chauhan and others v.
Union of India and another (Annexure No.1
to the writ petition).

(ii) To issue writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent
nos.2 and 3 to comply with the order dated
10.05.2022
passed
by
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad,
in
Original
Application
No.1427 of 2018 (Dr. Brajendra Singh
Chauhan and 2 others Vs. Union of India
and another) (Annexure No.5 to the writ
petition) in letter and spirit and in pith and
assign the notional seniority to the
petitioners from their initial appointment
date, amend the seniority list and place the
petitioners at the bottom of their respective
batches and grant all due notional
promotions to the petitioners upto the Chief
Medial Officer through review DPC and
thereafter fix their salary accordingly.

(iii) To issue any other suitable
writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper.

(iv) To award the cost of the writ
petition in favour of the petitioners"

5. Learned Standing Counsel has
raised a preliminary objection with regard
to maintainability of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India by virtue of Section
17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
173
1985") read with Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. To answer preliminary objection,
issue fell for consideration is whether the
writ petition is maintainable before the
High Court against the orders passed under
the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. To decide the above issue, the
following relevant Statutes and provisions
namely
(1)
Article
323
A
of
the
Constitution of India, (2) Sections 14 and
17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985 and Sections 11, 12 and 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are extracted
respectively hereinbelow:-

"Article
323A
Administrative
Tribunals- (1) Parliament may, by law,
provide for the adjudication or trial by
administrative tribunals of disputes and
complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed
to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of any State
or of any local or other authority within the
territory of India or under the control of
the Government of India or of any
corporation owned or controlled by the
Government.

(2) A law made under clause (1)
may-

(a) provide for the establishment
of an administrative tribunal for the Union
and a separate administrative tribunal for
each State or for two or more States;

(b)
specify
the
jurisdiction,
powers (including the power to punish for
contempt) and authority which may be
exercised by each of the said tribunals;

(c) provide for the procedure
(including provisions as to limitation and
rules of evidence) to be followed by the
said tribunals;

(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all
courts, except the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under article 136, with
respect to the disputes or complaints
referred to in clause (1);

(e) provide for the transfer to
each such administrative tribunal of any
cases pending before any court or other
authority
immediately
before
the
establishment of such tribunal as would
have been within the jurisdiction of such
tribunal if the causes of action on which
such suits or proceedings are based had
arisen after such establishment;

(f) repeal or amend any order
made by the President under clause (3) of
article 371D;

(g) contain such supplemental,
incidental and consequential provisions
(including provisions as to fees) as
Parliament may deem necessary for the
effective functioning of, and for the speedy
disposal of cases by, and the enforcement
of the orders of, such tribunals.

(3) The provisions of this article
shall have effect notwithstanding anything
in any other provision of this Constitution
or in any other law for the time being in
force."

"Section 14. Jurisdiction, powers
and
authority
of
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal.

(1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided
in
this
Act,
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on
and from the appointed day, all the
jurisdiction,
powers
and
authority
exercisable immediately before that day by
all courts except the Supreme Court in
relation to-

(a) recruitment, and matters
concerning recruitment, to any All-India
Service or to any civil service of the Union
or a civil post under the Union or to a post
connected with defence or in the defence
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
services, being, in either case, a post filled
by a civilian;

(b)
all
service
matters
concerning-

(i) a member of any All-India
Service; or

(ii) a person [not being a member
of an All-India Service or a person referred
to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil
service of the Union or any civil post under
the Union; or

(iii) a civilian [not being a
member of an All-India Service or a person
referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any
defence services or a post connected with
defence,

and pertaining to the service of
such member, person or civilian, in
connection with the affairs of the Union or
of any State or of any local or other
authority within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of
India or of any corporation [or society]
owned or controlled by the Government;

(c) all service matters pertaining
to service in connection with the affairs of
the Union concerning a person appointed
to any service or post referred to in subclause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b),
being a person whose services have been
placed by a State Government or any local
or other authority or any corporation [or
society] or other body, at the disposal of
the
Central
Government
for
such
appointment.

Explanation.--For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby declared that references
to "Union" in this sub-section shall be
construed as including references also to a
Union territory.]

(2) The Central Government may,
by notification, apply with effect from such
date as may be specified in the notification
the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or
other authorities within the territory of
India or under the control of the
Government of India and to corporations
[or societies] owned or controlled by
Government, not being a local or other
authority or corporation [or society]
controlled
or
owned
by
a
State
Government:

Provided that if the Central
Government considers it expedient so to do
for the purpose of facilitating transition to
the scheme as envisaged by this Act,
different dates may be so specified under
this sub-section in respect of different
classes of, or different categories under any
class of, local or other authorities or
corporations [or societies].

(3) Save as otherwise expressly
provided
in
this
Act,
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise,
on and from the date with effect from which
the provisions of this sub-section apply to
any local or other authority or corporation
[or society], all the jurisdiction, powers
and authority exercisable immediately
before that date by all courts (except the
Supreme Court in relation to-

(a) recruitment, and matters
concerning recruitment, to any service or
post in connection with the affairs of such
local or other authority or corporation [or
society]; and

(b) all service matters concerning
a person [other than a person referred to in
clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)]
appointed to any service or post in
connection with the affairs of such local or
other authority or corporation [or society]
and pertaining to the service of such person
in connection with such affairs.

Section 17. Power to punish for
contempt. - A Tribunal shall have, and
exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and
authority in respect of contempt of itself as
a High Court has and may exercise and, for
this
purpose,
the
provisions
of
the
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
175
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)
shall
have
effect
subject
to
the
modifications that-

(a) the references therein to a
High Court shall be construed as including
a reference to such Tribunal; (b) the
references to the Advocate-General in
section 15 of the said Act shall be
construed,-(i) in relation to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, as a reference to
the Attorney-General or the SolicitorGeneral
or
the
Additional
SolicitorGeneral; and (ii) in relation to an
Administrative Tribunal for a State or a
Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or
more States, as a reference to the
Advocate-General of the State or any of the
States for which such Tribunal has been
established."

"Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Power of High Court to
try offences committed or offenders found
outside jurisdiction.-

A
High
Court
shall
have
jurisdiction to inquire into or try a
contempt of itself or of any court
subordinate to it, whether the contempt is
alleged to have been committed within or
outside the local limits of its jurisdiction,
and whether the person alleged to be guilty
of contempt is within or outside such limits.

Section
12.
Punishment
for
contempt of court.-

(1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act or in any other law, a
contempt of court may be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to two thousand rupees, or with
both:Provided that the accused may be
discharged or the punishment awarded may
be remitted on apology being made to the
satisfaction of the court. Explanation.-An
apology shall not be rejected merely on the
ground that it is qualified or conditional if
the accused makes it bona fide. (2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, no
court shall impose a sentence in excess of
that specified in sub-section (1) for any
contempt either in respect of itself or of a
court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this section, where a
person is found guilty of a civil contempt,
the court, if it considers that a fine will not
meet the ends of justice and that a sentence
of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead
of sentencing him to simple imprisonment,
direct that he be detained in a civil prison
for such period not exceeding six months as
it may think fit.(4) Where the person found
guilty of contempt of court in respect of any
undertaking given to a court is a company,
every person who, at the time the contempt
was committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to, the company for the conduct
of business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of
the contempt and the punishment may be
enforced, with the leave of the court, by the
detention in civil prison of each such
person: Provided that nothing contained in
this sub-section shall render any such
person liable to such punishment if he
proves that the contempt was committed
without his knowledge or that he exercised
all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (4), where the contempt of
court
referred
to
therein
has
been
committed by a company and it is proved
that the contempt has been committed with
the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part of,
any director, manager, secretary or other
officer of the company, such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall
also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt
and the punishment may be enforced, with
the leave of the court, by the detention in
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
civil prison of such director, manager,
secretary or other officer. Explanation.-
For the purposes of sub-sections (4) and
(5),-(a) "company" means any body
corporate and includes a firm or other
association
of
individuals;
and
(a)
"director", in relation to a firm, means a
partner in the firm.

Section 19. Appeals.-

(1) An appeal shall lie as of right
from any order or decision of High Court
in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish
for contempt- (a) where the order or
decision is that of a single Judge, to a
Bench of not less than two Judges of the
Court; (a) where the order or decision is
that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision
is that of the Court of the Judicial
Commissioner in any Union territory, such
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.(2)
Pending any appeal, the appellate Court
may order that-(a) the execution of the
punishment or order appealed against be
suspended; (b) if the appellant is in
confinement, he be released on bail; and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding
that the appellant has not purged his
contempt.(3) Where any person aggrieved
by any order against which an appeal may
be filed satisfies the High Court that he
intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court
may also exercise all or any of the powers
conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal
under sub-section (1) shall be filed- (a) in
the case of an appeal to a Bench of the
High Court, within thirty days; (a) in the
case of an appeal to the Supreme Court,
within sixty days,from the date of the order
appealed against."

8. The Constitution by (42nd
Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced Article
323-A empowering the Parliament to enact
the law and providing for adjudication or
trial by Administrative Tribunals. Clause 2
(b) of Article 323 A empowers the
Parliament to specify the jurisdiction and
powers of such Tribunal including the
power to punish for contempt.

9. Pursuant to the Article 323-A of the
Constitution of India, the Parliament
enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 (further it is referred to as the Act,
1985). Section 14 of the Act 1985 specifies
the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the
Central Administrative Tribunal. Section
15 specifies the same for the State
Administrative Tribunal. There is no
remedy of appeal statutorily available for
the orders passed under Sections 14/15 of
the Act 1985.

10. Section 17 of the Act, 1985
empowers the Tribunal to punish for
contempt of itself and provides that the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 (further it is referred to as the Act,
1971) shall have effect in this regard
subject to the modification that any
reference to High Court under the Act,
1971 shall be construed as a reference to
the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal shall
have the same jurisdiction, powers and
authority in respect of contempt of itself as
a High Court has. There is a distinction
between the orders passed by the Tribunal
under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1985 and
the order passed under Section 19 of the
Act, 1971 as against the former there is no
remedy of appeal statutorily provided but
as against the latter remedy of appeal is
provided under Section 19 of the Act, 1971.
An order or decision of the Tribunal in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt would be appealable as a matter
of right under sub-section (1) of Section 19
of the Act, 1971, which provides that an
appeal shall lie as a matter of right to the
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
177
Bench of at least two Judges where the
contempt order is passed by the Single
Judge and it shall lie to the Supreme Court
where the order is passed by the Bench.

11. Since proceeding for contempt
under Section 17 of the Act, 1985 is dealt
with by the Bench of not less than two
Members and the order passed under
Section 17 of the Act, 1985 would be
appealable before the Supreme Court only.
Therefore, any order or decision of the
Tribunal under the Act, 1971 shall be
appealable only to the Supreme Court
within 60 days from the date of the order.

12. The provisions of the Act, 1971
are in addition to and not in derogation of
Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution.
The jurisdiction contemplated by Articles
129 and 215 of the Constitution is
unalienable and it cannot be taken away or
whittled down by any legislative enactment
subordinate to the Constitution.

13. In view of the above backdrop, to
answer the issue, we have to rely on the
ratio decided by the three Judges Bench of
the Apex Court in the case of T. Sudhakar
Prasad Vs. Government of A.P. (2001) 1
SCC 516, relevant paragraph nos.7, 8, 11,
14, 16, 17 and 18 are reproduced as under:

7. In pursuance of Article 323A of
the Constitution the Parliament enacted the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to
provide for the adjudication or trial by
Administrative Tribunals of disputes and
complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed
to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of any State
or of any local or other authority within the
territory of India or under the control of
the Government of India or of any
Corporation or society owned or controlled
by the Government. On coming into force
of the Act and Constitution of the Central
Administrative Tribunal all the jurisdiction,
powers
and
authority
exercisable
immediately before that day by all courts,
which would include the High Courts
(except the Supreme Court) in relation to
the matters specified in Section 14(1) of the
Act came to be conferred on the Tribunal.
Section 17 gives the Tribunal power to
punish for contempt which reads as under:

17. Power to punish for contempt
- A Tribunal shall have, and exercise, the
same jurisdiction, powers and authority in
respect of contempt of itself as a High
Court has and may exercise and, for this
purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (7.0 of 1971), shall have
effect subject to the modifications that:

(a) the references therein to a
High Court shall be construed as including
a reference to such Tribunal;

(b)
the
references
to
the
Advocate-General in Section 15 of the said
Act shall be construed.

(i) in relation to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, as a reference to
the Attorney-General or the SolicitorGeneral
or
the
Additional
SolicitorGeneral; and

(ii)
in
relation
to
an
Administrative Tribunal for a State or a
Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or
more States, as a reference to the
Advocate-General of the State or any of the
States for which such Tribunal has been
established.

[emphasis supplied]

8. Section 22 provides that a
Tribunal shall not be bound by the
procedure laid down in the CPC, 1908 but
shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice and subject to the other provisions
of the Act and of any Rules made by the
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Central Government, the Tribunal shall
have power to regulate its own procedure
including the fixing of places and times of
its enquiry and deciding whether to sit in
public or in private. Sub-section (2)
empowers the Tribunal to decide the
application before it on a perusal of
documents and written representations and
after hearing such oral arguments as may
be advanced. Sub-section (3) confers on the
Tribunal specified powers of a civil court
under the CPC in respect of specified
matters. Section 27 provides that the order
of a Tribunal finally disposing of an
application or an appeal shall not be called
in question in any court including a High
Court. On a Tribunal being functional,
Section 28 excludes the jurisdiction of all
courts, including High Court, but not the
Supreme
Court,
Industrial
Tribunal,
Labour
Court
or
other
Authority
constituted under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law
from exercising any jurisdiction, power or
authority in relation to matters falling
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

11. In L. Chandra Kumar v.
Union
of
India
and
Ors.
MANU/SC/0261/1997
:
[1997]
228ITR725(SC) the matter had come up
before the seven-Judges Bench of this
Court consequent upon a reference made
by a Division Bench of this Court which
doubted the correctness of a five-Judges
Constitution Bench of this Court in S.P.
Sampath
Kumar
v.
Union
of
India
MANU/SC/0851/1987 : (1987)ILLJ 128SC
and felt the need of the same being
comprehensively reconsidered. This Court
framed
three
broad
issues
for
its
consideration and proceeded to consider
the constitutional validity of Articles 323A,
323B and several provisions of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We
need not extensively reproduce several
conclusions arrived at by the Constitution
Bench (excepting where necessary); it
would suffice to briefly summarise the
conclusions of the Constitution Bench
insofar as necessary for our purpose. The
Constitution
Bench
held
that
the
jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Courts and the Supreme Court under
Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution
respectively is a part of the inviolable basic
structure of our Constitution. The power of
judicial review over legislative action
vesting in the High Courts under Article
226 and in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution are an
integral and essential feature of such basic
structure and therefore their power to test
the constitutional validity of legislations
can never be ousted or excluded (paras 73,
78). The power vested in the High Courts to
exercise judicial superintendence over the
decisions of all courts and Tribunals within
their respective jurisdictions is also part of
the basic structure of the Constitution and
a situation where the High Courts are
divested of all other judicial functions
apart
from
that
of
constitutional
interpretation is equally to be avoided
(para
79).
Though
the
subordinate
judiciary
or
Tribunal
created
under
ordinary legislations cannot exercise the
power of judicial review of legislative
action to the exclusion of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court, there is no
constitutional prohibition against their
performing a supplemental - as opposed to
a substitutional - role in this respect.
Clause (3) of Article 32 itself contemplates
that Parliament may by law empower any
other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court
under Clause (2), without prejudice to the
powers conferred on the Supreme Court by
Clauses (1) and (2).
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
179

14 The jurisdictional powers of
the Tribunal were summarised by the
Constitution Bench as under (vide para
93):

1. The Tribunals are competent to
hear matters where the vires of statutory
provisions are questioned. However, in
discharging this duty, they cannot act as
substitutes for the High Courts and the
Supreme Court which have, under our
constitutional set up, been specifically
entrusted with such an obligation. Their
function
in
this
respect
is
only
supplementary and all such decisions of the
Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before
a Division Bench of the respective High
Courts. The Tribunals will consequently
also have the power to test the vires of
subordinate
legislations
and
rules.
However, this power of the Tribunals will
be subject to one important exception. The
Tribunals shall not entertain any question
regarding the vires of their parent statutes
following the settled principle that a
Tribunal which is a creature of an Act
cannot declare that very Act to be
unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the
High Court concerned may be approached
directly.

2. All other decisions of these
Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are
specifically empowered to adjudicate upon
by virtue of their parent statutes, will also
be subject to scrutiny before a Division
Bench of their respective High Courts. The
Tribunals will, however, continue to act as
the only courts of first instance in respect
of the areas of law for which they have
been constituted; meaning thereby that it
will not be open for litigants to directly
approach the High Courts even in cases
where they question the vires of statutory
legislations (except, as mentioned, where
the legislation which creates the particular
Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.

The
Constitution
Bench
concluded as under :

"We hold that Clause (2)(a)(d) of
Article 323-A and Clause (3)(d) of Article
323-B, to the extent they exclude the
jurisdiction of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and
32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional.
Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of
jurisdiction"
Clauses
in
all
other
legislations enacted under the aegis of
Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the
same extent, be unconstitutional. The
jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution is a part of the inviolable
basic structure of our Constitution. While
this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other
courts and Tribunals may perform a
supplemental role in discharging the
powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and
32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals
created under Article 323-A and Article
323-B of the Constitution are possessed of
the competence to test the constitutional
validity of statutory provisions and rules.
All decisions of these Tribunals will,
however, be subject to scrutiny before a
Division Bench of the High Court within
whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned
falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless,
continue to act like courts of first instance
in respect of the areas of law for which they
have been constituted. It will not, therefore,
be open for litigants to directly approach
the High Courts even in cases where they
question the vires of statutory legislations
(except where the legislation which creates
the particular Tribunal is challenged) by
overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and constitutional and is to be interpreted
in the manner we have indicated.

16. It is thus clear that the
Constitution Bench has not declared the
provisions of Article 323-A(2)(b) or Article
323-B(3)(d) or Section 17 of the Act ultra
vires the Constitution. The High Court has,
in its judgment under appeal, noted with
emphasis
the
Tribunal
having
been
compared to like 'courts of first instance'
and then proceeded to hold that the status
of Administrative Tribunals having been
held to be equivalent to court or Tribunals
sub-ordinate to High Court the jurisdiction
to hear their own contempt was lost by the
Administrative Tribunals and the only
course available to them was either to
make a reference to High Court or to file a
complaint under Sections 193, 219 and 228
of IPC as provided by Section 30 of the Act.
The High Court has proceeded on the
reasoning that the Tribunal having been
held to be subordinate to the High Court
for the purpose of Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution and its decisions having been
subjected to judicial review jurisdiction of
the High Court under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution the right to file an appeal
to the Supreme Court against an order
passed by the Tribunal punishing for
contempt under Section 17 of the Act was
defeated and on these twin grounds Section
17 of the Act became unworkable and
unconstitutional. We do not find any basis
for such conclusion or inference being
drawn from the judgments of this Court in
the
cases
of
Supreme
Court
Bar
Association (supra) or L. Chandra Kumar
(supra) or any other decision of this Court.
The Constitution Bench has in so many
words said that the jurisdiction conferred
on the High Courts under Articles 226/227
could not be taken away by conferring the
same on any court or Tribunal and
jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the High
Court now legislatively conferred on
Tribunals to the exclusion of High Court on
specified matters, did not amount to
assigning Tribunals a status of substitute
for the High Court but such jurisdiction
was
capable
of
being
conferred
additionally or supple mentally on any
Court or Tribunal which is not a concept
strange to the scheme of the Constitution
more so in view of Articles 323-A and 323B.
Clause
(2)(b)
of
Article
323-A
specifically empowers the Parliament to
enact a law specifying the jurisdiction and
powers, including the power to punish for
contempt,
being
conferred
on
Administrative Tribunals constituted under
Article 323-A. Section 17 of the Act derives
its legislative sanctity therefrom. The
power of the High Court to punish for
contempt of itself under Article 215 of the
Constitution
remains
intact
but
the
jurisdictional power and authority to hear
and decide the matters covered by Subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act having
been conferred on the Administrative
Tribunals the jurisdiction of the High Court
to that extent has been taken away and
hence the same jurisdiction which vested in
the High Court to punish for contempt of
itself in the matters now falling within the
jurisdiction of Tribunals if those matters
would have continued to be heard by the
High Court has now been conferred on the
Administrative Tribunals under Section 17
of the Act. The jurisdiction is the same as
vesting in the High Courts under Article
215 of the Constitution read with the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. The need for enacting Section 17
arose, firstly, to avoid doubts, and
secondly, because the Tribunals are not
"courts of record". While holding the
proceedings under Section 17 of the Act the
Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would
be amenable to jurisdiction of High Court
4 All. Dr. Brajendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
181
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
subject to the well-established rules of selfrestraint governing the discretion of the
High Court to interfere with the pending
proceedings and upset the interim or
interlocutory orders of the Tribunals.
However any order or decision of Tribunal
punishing for contempt shall be appealable
only to the Supreme Court within 60 days
from the date of the order appealed against
in view of the specific provision contained
in Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section
17 of Administrative Tribunals Act is a
piece of legislation by reference. The
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act are
not as if lifted and incorporated in the text
of Administrative Tribunals Act (as is in the
case of legislation by incorporation); they
remain there where they are yet while
reading the provision of Contempt of
Courts Act in the context of Tribunal the
same will be so read as to read the word
Tribunal' in place of the word 'High Court'
wherever
it
occurs,
subject
to
the
modifications set out in Section 17 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 19 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides
for appeals.