JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J. (Oral)-The issue involved in the present writ petition has been succinctly summed up in the order of this Court dated 4.8.2006 which reads as under: "The short question arising for consideration is the non-consideration of the plea raised by the petitioner in a Review Application with one of the members of the Tribunal earlier happens to be the Health Secretary and he would have dealt with petitioners case in the disciplinary proceedings. The Review Petition was decided by circulation and as such, the respondent did not have the occasion to either rebut or deny the same. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Khurana says that in the writ petition, this plea was taken specifically and there is no denial of the same but a reply saying that the same is a matter of record, has been filed. In these circumstances, learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Tikku wishes to examine and produce the record of the Ministry relating to the disciplinary proceedings and the file no tings to ascertain whether the Administrative Member had dealt with the file of the petitioner." 2. Mr. Tikku, learned Counsel for the respondent has informed us that Mr. S. K. Naik, in his capacity as the Health Secretary had indeed dealt with the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner which have led to the O.A. In light of this it is obvious that Mr. Naik ought not to have dealt with this matter at all. In the light of this very fair submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is apparent that the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.6.2005 and the order passed in Review Application dated 27.4.2005 in both of which orders the administrative member Shri S. K. Naik was a party cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. 3. However, we are constrained to put on record our anguish at the fact that even though Shri S.K. Naik, Member of Administrative Tribunal was informed by an averment in the Review Application that he has dealt with the matter in the disciplinary proceedings he nevertheless went on to dismiss the Review Application. We are surprised that apart from the administrative member who may be innocent of the nuances of principles of natural justice, the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal also chose to ignore this glaring infirmity in the disposal of the review petition. We are surprised that apart from the administrative member who may be innocent of the nuances of principles of natural justice, the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal also chose to ignore this glaring infirmity in the disposal of the review petition. The Tribunal has thus ignored this vital principle of the audi alteram partem in disposing of the Review Application mechanically. 4. We have noticed the recent trend in the Central Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the review petition purportedly giving a reason that the petitioner was seeking to reargue the original application in the guise of urging the Review Application. It is not enough to merely state that the petitioner are merely trying to reargue the matter, but it must be shown at least by addressing the primary submission in the review petition to record how it is a repetition of arguments advanced when the O.A. was disposed. The Central Administrative Tribunal is directed to ensure that in future Review Applications are disposed of by a reasoned order particularly when the relevant rules require the review application to be decided by circulation. 5. The parties are, consequently, directed to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 6th March, 2007. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the original application afresh in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition and all pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly. Writ Petition disposed of.