Former ITAT President loses in CAT
THE applicant, GE Veerabhadrappa is the senior most vice-president of the ITAT, appointed as a Member of the Tribunal in 1990 and as Vice president in 2005. By order dated 13.10.2011, he was appointed President of the Tribunal in "officiating capacity till the post was filled up on regular basis". By notification dated 5.5.2012, this order was modified to read "in an officiating capacity up to 31.8.2012 or further orders" whichever is earlier. On 31.8.2012, H. L. Karwa was appointed the President in place of Veerabhadrappa.
Aggrieved former President and present senior most vice-president Veerabhadrappa is before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming that his removal from the post of President was by "malice and personal vendetta" of the Law Secretary (present and former) owing to his refusal to cancel the transfers of some Members and the appointment of HL Karwa (the junior-most Vice President) as President was irregular as found by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The applicant produced a confidential document regarding this. The CAT expressed surprise and concern that a confidential document of the ACC has been produced before it. CAT described it as not a healthy trend.
The Law Ministry submitted before CAT that there were complaints regarding his integrity and that the decision was taken at the highest level after "due consideration". The Counsel offered to produce the relevant file before the CAT.
The CAT dismissed the petition holding that the order appointing the Applicant as President made it clear that the appointment was "in an officiating capacity and until further orders"; that the order dated 5.5.2012 restricting the Applicant's tenure as President till 31.8.2012 was challenged by him several months later;that though there may not be delay and laches, the conduct was one of acquiescence and did not entitle him to relief; that the Government is entitled to appoint the President in an officiating capacity so as to ensure that no vacuum is left in the Institution; that the opinion expressed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet is totally misconceived; that it is immaterial whether the person appointed as officiating President is junior or not and there is no question of supersession.
And the Government is yet to find a regular President for the Tribunal!