The Uniion Of INDIA vs. Namarla Satyanarayana

Held

The Court held that the petitioners' contention that the CAT failed to consider the respondent's promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments was without merit. The Court noted that the Original Application No. 506 of 2020, which led to the order being challenged, was filed before the promotion order dated 24.12.2020 was issued. Therefore, the promotion was not in existence at the time the CAT made its decision regarding the suspension. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan, emphasizing that a writ of certiorari can only be issued for jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or violation of natural justice. The Court found these contingencies to be absent in the orders impugned before it and therefore, was not inclined to interfere with the CAT's orders. The writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts

These two writ petitions were filed by the Union of India and its subordinate authorities challenging a common order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The CAT had allowed Original Application Nos. 162 and 174 of 2021. The respondent, Namarla Satyanarayana, a Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), had his caste certificate cancelled by the District Collector in 2018, which was stayed by the appellate authority. Subsequently, he was suspended from service in 2020 based on a complaint. The CAT had set aside this suspension order and directed his posting to a non-sensitive post. This order was upheld by the High Court and a subsequent review petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The respondent was reinstated and promoted. The present writ petitions challenge the CAT's order in OAs 162 and 174 of 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CAT erred in setting aside the order of suspension and extension of suspension against the respondent, considering the promotion granted to him as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments? The petitioners argued that the CAT failed to consider the promotion granted to the respondent as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, which is a Group-A post, and that the suspension was a consequence of a complaint. They contended that the CAT's order was passed without considering this crucial development, rendering it unsustainable. The respondent argued that at the time the CAT considered the Original Application No. 506 of 2020 (which led to the order being challenged in the present writ petitions), the promotion order dated 24.12.2020 was not in existence. Therefore, the petitioners' contention regarding the promotion was irrelevant to the CAT's decision on the suspension.