Union Of INDIA vs. B. Sumanth Kumar

Facts

The Union of India, represented by its revenue authorities, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging a specific finding in an order dated March 11, 2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The CAT's order was in Original Application No. 21/1052/2017. The petitioner's grievance was limited to paragraph 7(VIII) of the CAT's order. This paragraph questioned the competence of the Under Secretary to the Government of India to ratify government orders dated July 13, 2010, and December 22, 2009, concerning the designation of disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities for Group 'B' posts under the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The CAT had held that the Under Secretary was not competent to ratify these orders, relying on the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 1958.

Held

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had grossly erred in ignoring the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002. The Court found that the 2002 Rules superseded the 1958 Rules. Rule 2(1) of the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002, clearly states that a decision can be authenticated by the signature of an Under Secretary to the Government of India. Therefore, the Under Secretary was competent to notify the decision taken by the President of India, as done vide the order dated July 13, 2010, which followed the reclassification of posts of Inspector (C.Ex.), Inspector (PO), and Inspector (Examiner) as Group 'B' non-gazetted posts by the order dated December 22, 2009. The Court found no error in the notification issued on July 13, 2010. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal in paragraph 7(VIII) of its order dated March 11, 2019, was set aside. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Under Secretary to the Government of India was competent to notify the decision of the President of India regarding the designation of disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities for Group 'B' posts, in light of the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002, thereby superseding the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 1958? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the CAT erred in relying on the superseded Rules of 1958. They argued that the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002, which superseded the 1958 Rules, were notified on January 16, 2002. Under the 2002 Rules, specifically Rule 2(1), an Under Secretary is competent to notify decisions made by the Government of India. Therefore, the notification dated July 13, 2010, issued by the Under Secretary, was valid. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (impliedly, as the CAT's order is being challenged) argued that the Under Secretary was not competent to ratify the orders, as per the CAT's finding, relying on the 1958 Rules.