NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented development, the Delhi high court on Monday ordered inspection of computers used by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to verify if an order allegedly pronounced in open court by its members was later reversed.
Taking a grim view of the allegations, a division bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice V K Rao roped in the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to examine computers installed in CAT, including its logs to find out the truth. The HC acted on allegations leveled by an ACP of Delhi Police, who said on oath that the CAT bench first allowed his plea against departmental action but later dismissed it.
"One proof of correctness of averments made would be lying in cyber space. If the computer of the concerned bench of the CAT is accessed for March 20, 2013, the DAT file would have a log of the files/folder pertaining to the case being opened," the bench observed, asking the NIC technical member to immediately access the computers "in the secretariat of Mr George Paracken, member (judicial), and Dr Birendra Kumar Sinha, member (administrative) of CAT."
Through his lawyer Ankur Chibber, the police officer Mahitap Bisht informed HC that he moved CAT against the decision of his superiors to demote him from the rank of ACP . In the process, he challenged the Delhi Police and home ministry's administrative orders. After hearing his arguments, the CAT bench dictated in open court that Bisht's plea was being allowed, the petition alleged in HC.
However, for the next fortnight, despite repeated requests by his lawyer, CAT refused to furnish a copy of the order. To Bisht's utter shock, he was told that CAT has decided to re-hear the case apparently because one of the members had dissented. Despite protests by Bisht and Chibber, CAT heard their arguments again, reserved its verdict for the next four months and finally dismissed his case on September 13.
Bisht maintained the decision smacked of arbitrariness and lack of judicial decorum, arguing even if one member disagreed, the correct approach was to render a dissenting verdict and refer the case to a larger bench, instead of rehearing the matter.
HC sensed something amiss, seeking an inspection report of the computer logs by October 25 from the NIC.
Print Page
Taking a grim view of the allegations, a division bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice V K Rao roped in the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to examine computers installed in CAT, including its logs to find out the truth. The HC acted on allegations leveled by an ACP of Delhi Police, who said on oath that the CAT bench first allowed his plea against departmental action but later dismissed it.
"One proof of correctness of averments made would be lying in cyber space. If the computer of the concerned bench of the CAT is accessed for March 20, 2013, the DAT file would have a log of the files/folder pertaining to the case being opened," the bench observed, asking the NIC technical member to immediately access the computers "in the secretariat of Mr George Paracken, member (judicial), and Dr Birendra Kumar Sinha, member (administrative) of CAT."
Through his lawyer Ankur Chibber, the police officer Mahitap Bisht informed HC that he moved CAT against the decision of his superiors to demote him from the rank of ACP . In the process, he challenged the Delhi Police and home ministry's administrative orders. After hearing his arguments, the CAT bench dictated in open court that Bisht's plea was being allowed, the petition alleged in HC.
However, for the next fortnight, despite repeated requests by his lawyer, CAT refused to furnish a copy of the order. To Bisht's utter shock, he was told that CAT has decided to re-hear the case apparently because one of the members had dissented. Despite protests by Bisht and Chibber, CAT heard their arguments again, reserved its verdict for the next four months and finally dismissed his case on September 13.
Bisht maintained the decision smacked of arbitrariness and lack of judicial decorum, arguing even if one member disagreed, the correct approach was to render a dissenting verdict and refer the case to a larger bench, instead of rehearing the matter.
HC sensed something amiss, seeking an inspection report of the computer logs by October 25 from the NIC.
No comments:
Post a Comment