Judgment : Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. BACKDROP The respondent No. 1 was a member of the Indian Police Service who has recently retired. He had two grievances: (i) He had two departmental proceedings that he challenged before the Tribunal being O.A No. 506 of 2013 and O.A. No. 1122 of 2012. (ii) Denial of promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application on his grievance as to denial of promotion and directed the State to give him promotion after canceling all promotions that were given to his juniors in the process. The State challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal holding the promotional process not deserving any interference by the judgment and order dated February 25, 2014 in W.P.C.T No. 40 and 43 of 2014 and C.O.C.T No. 1 of 2014. Dr. Nazrul Islam approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide judgment and order dated September 8, 2014 that would take care of his grievance with regard to promotion that reached finality at the Apex Court stage. The present controversy would relate to his other grievance with regard to the disciplinary proceedings. O.A. No.1122 of 2012 and O.A. No. 506 of 2013 came up for hearing when the other matter was pending before the High Court. The Tribunal was duly formed about such pendency. When O.A. No.1122 of 2012 and O.A No 506 of 2013 were pending before the Tribunal, two of its Administrative Members declined to be a part of the quorum. Hence, on the request of the judicial member, the principal Bench at Delhi asked Mr. Pranab Kumar Basu administrative member to be a part of the quorum. Accordingly, Mr. Basu joined the quorum. According to Mr. Islam, the administrative member came from Delhi only for the instant matter, however, the State counsel was conspicuously absent. Be that as it may, the Bench asked the two senior officers of the State being Chief Secretary and Home Secretary to appear along with another officer being Officer on Special Duty as the Bench felt, the adjudication would reflect “serious consequence” and sensitive issue was involved relating to “functioning of the State Government”. Be that as it may, the Bench asked the two senior officers of the State being Chief Secretary and Home Secretary to appear along with another officer being Officer on Special Duty as the Bench felt, the adjudication would reflect “serious consequence” and sensitive issue was involved relating to “functioning of the State Government”. Relevant part of such direction dated March 19, 2014 is quoted below: “For effecting adjudication of the matter, as it may reflect serious consequences and as sensitive issue is involved relating to functioning of State Government, we are of the view that the senior officers, namely, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and the Officer on Special Duty, Mr. Gautam Sanyal, should remain present before this Tribunal tomorrow at 11:30 a.m. to know their view. Learned advocate Mr. Majumder on behalf of State respondents will communicate the order to the State respondents and said officers.” Accordingly, the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary appeared before the Tribunal on the next day. The Tribunal directed the other officer to appear. The order dated March 20, 2014 is quoted below: “In terms of earlier order dated 19.03.2014, Mr. Sanjay Mitra, Chief Secretary and Mr. Basudeb Banerjee, Home Secretary are present, Mr. Gautam Sanyal, Officer on Special Duty has not noted his appearance today. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mitra and Mr. Basudeb Banerjee. So their further appearance stands dispensed with. Ld. Advocate Mr. Majumder submits that he has no instruction on issue as to why Mr. Sanyal is absent to-day.” PRESENT LIS: Being aggrieved, the State initially filed application before us being W.P.C.T. No. 77 of 2014 and W.P.C.T. No. 78 of 2014 that the Division Bench dismissed vide order dated April 8, 2014 as there was procedural mistake committed by the applicant. The Division Bench, however, granted leave to move afresh. Accordingly, the present applications being W.P.C.T. No. 90 and 91 of 2014 were moved. The present applications being W.P.C.T. No. 90 and 91 of 2014 would relate to the order dated March 19, 2014 and March 20, 2014 quoted (supra). According to the applicant,, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to ask the functionaries of the State to appear in the matter. The State contended in their application, there was no purpose, to call the concerned officers. Rather, the Tribunal wanted to put pressure upon the State to withdraw the charges that were brought against Dr. According to the applicant,, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to ask the functionaries of the State to appear in the matter. The State contended in their application, there was no purpose, to call the concerned officers. Rather, the Tribunal wanted to put pressure upon the State to withdraw the charges that were brought against Dr. Nazrul Islam, failure of which would have a grave consequence. Paragraph 4 of the application is quoted below: “Your petitioners state that on March 19, 2014 the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners appeared before the Hon’ble tribunal. Shri Nirmalya Ghoshal, Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of West Bengal attended the hearing on March 19, 2014 and produced the records. At the very outset the Hon’ble Justice Pratap Kumar Ray, Judicial Member and Hon;ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Administrative Member made the following suggestions: a) The State Government should withdraw the Memorandum of charges dated November 22, 2012 and May 15, 2013. b) If the State Government seeks to contest the Original Applications being O.A. No. 1122 of 2012 and O.A. No. 506 of 2013 and if the said matters are carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government would not succeed in the said litigations. c) The respondent is an honest officer and he should not be subject to disciplinary action. The respondent has freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and therefore he has the right to criticise luminaries like Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhaya, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Pandit Ravi Shankar. d) Bankim Chandra Chattopadhya was indeed a “Muslim-hater”, as stated by Dr. Islam in his book. e) The respondent is a lone crusader and he had every right to criticize policy of Government relating to minorities namely Muslims. f) The respondent has written about 80 books and good governance demands one should accept criticism. If the Hon’ble Tribunal finally adjudicates the matter then it will have far reaching consequences. g) The adjudication and consequential media coverage of such adjudication would have a telling effect on the electorate in the Parliamentary elections. h) The Muslim community has indeed been deprived as per the recommendations of the Sachar Committee.” According to the State, such direction was for oblique purpose as it was nothing but to put pressure upon the State so that the State would withdraw the charges brought against Dr. Nazrul Islam. h) The Muslim community has indeed been deprived as per the recommendations of the Sachar Committee.” According to the State, such direction was for oblique purpose as it was nothing but to put pressure upon the State so that the State would withdraw the charges brought against Dr. Nazrul Islam. The matter appeared before the Division Bench that released the matter on the personal ground of one of the Hon’ble judges. Hence, the then Chief Justice assigned the matter before the Bench presided over by one of us Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee. We are told, Dr. Islam challenged the order of assignment before the learned Single Judge by a writ petition His Lordship dismissed the writ petition with cost vide judgment and order dated June 17, 2014 Dr. Nazrul Islam preferred appeal unsuccessfully. Initially, Dr. Nazrul Islam was represented by Sri Surojit Samanto who retired from this case as according to him, Dr. Nazrul Islam wanted to argue in person. We, however, requested him to be present to assist us. In deference to the desire of this Court, Mr. Surojit Samanto was present and assisted us. Dr. Nazrul Islam initially prayed for release of the matter that we rejected vide judgment and order dated October 31, 2014. We observed, Dr. Nazrul Islam could not give any plausible reason for making such prayer. We fixed the matter for hearing on a subsequent date. Ultimately, we heard the matter on November 11, 2014 when we reserved our judgment. PRANAB KUMAR DUTTA: Sri Pranab Kumar Dutta learned Senior Counsel advanced his argument on behalf of the State applicant. He would submit, the orders impugned were nothing but a vindictive attitude on behalf of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was competent to decide the lis that was pending before it. Asking the party to be present and that too, for extraneous purpose, would be outside the scope of adjudication. He would also raise the issue of judicial bias. He would refer to the following decisions to support his contentions: 1) L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1997 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page- 261. 2) Pepsi Food Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported in 1998 Volume-V Supreme Court Cases Page- 749. 3) R.S. Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and Others reported in 2011 Volume-IV Supreme Court Cases Page- 281. DR. Union of India and Others reported in 1997 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page- 261. 2) Pepsi Food Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported in 1998 Volume-V Supreme Court Cases Page- 749. 3) R.S. Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and Others reported in 2011 Volume-IV Supreme Court Cases Page- 281. DR. NAJRUL ISLAM (IN PERSON) RELEASE According to Dr. Nazrul Islam, he should not have lost his earlier case before the Bench in which one of us was a party. He submitted a written note showing how the said judgment and order was wrong. He, however, could not justify as to how such issue could become relevant in the present case, particularly, when the earlier decision reached finality at the Apex Court stage when his Special Leave Petition was dismissed on. He would contend, since the Bench failed in grave error in rejecting his earlier petition on promotion he would not get proper justice before this Bench. His pleas did not impress us as such we rejected his prayer for release. MERIT Dr. Nazrul Islam also argued on merits. According to him, the contentions raised by the State were far from truth. The administrative member came to Kolkata only for his matter and the matter was fixed for three consecutive dates when the learned Counsel for the State initially failed to appear. Subsequently, another Counsel appeared, however, they could not properly assist the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal sought assistance from the officers. According to him, the Tribunal while functioning as a Court of law was competent to call for the assistance of the officials to have proper adjudication of the matter. He would rely upon Section 22(3)(a) and Section 32 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act to support his contention. Relying on Section 19 and Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1950 and Section 4 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1985, he would submit, such direction was not amenable for challenge before the Court of law. He would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others reported in All India Reporter 1999 Supreme Court Page- 976. ANINDA LAHIRI Mr. Aninda Lahiri learned Counsel being led by Mr. He would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others reported in All India Reporter 1999 Supreme Court Page- 976. ANINDA LAHIRI Mr. Aninda Lahiri learned Counsel being led by Mr. Arunava Ghosh learned Counsel appearing for the Tribunal would rely upon the two Apex Court decisions: 1) Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in All India Reporter 1993 Supreme Court Page-2444. 2) Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh reported in 1994 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page- 357, to support their contention, Tribunal was within their competence to ask the officers to be present. Mr. Arunava Ghosh formed this Court, the judicial member of the Tribunal resigned and joined author Tribunal. OUR VIEW We are little bit embarrassed to decide the controversy as the issue raised, would be not somewhat unfortunate. The allegations that the State made in their application, were serious in nature. Even if we ignore the said allegations, the first sentence of the order dated March 19, 214 would indicate some kind of incident similar to one alleged. We, however, feel, the senior member of the Bench being not present now, we need not go in detail on the issue. We are prompted to do so when we find, the subsequent order dated March 20, 2014 dispensed with the appearance of two senior officers of the State. Lot was argued before us as to the competence of the Tribunal. We fully agree, the Tribunal was quite competent to do so. However, it must have a nexus not only with the controversy but also on the adjudication of the controversy on merit. When State or anybody is a litigant before the Court, the Court would often call the senior officers to find out the possibilities of a workable solution. The Court of law is duty bound to do so in deference to the mandate of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal being a quasi judicial body was all the more competent to apply the same principle. Accordingly, the officers were called, however, the allegations that the State made through the affidavit of the Chief Secretary who vouched for such statement, would definitely perturb us. The Tribunal being a quasi judicial body was all the more competent to apply the same principle. Accordingly, the officers were called, however, the allegations that the State made through the affidavit of the Chief Secretary who vouched for such statement, would definitely perturb us. The Court of law sometimes use little judicial coercion putting pressure on the litigants to have a workable solution but there must be a limit. We, the Court of law or any Tribunal as the case may be, must be clear to our mind, we would be adjudicating the lis brought before us dispassionately and without any malice or bias. We cannot impute our personal knowledge or belief and impose it on the parties that would reflect in the judgment. Rightly or wrongly, State charged Dr. Nazrul Islam, two disciplinary proceedings are pending. If the Tribunal would find, those were maliciously brought or there was any irregularity in the process, Tribunal would be free to quash it. Blackmailing the State officers and putting pressure upon them would not be our right approach. We sincerely believe, that was not in the mind of the members of the Tribunal. There was perhaps some communication gap that resulted in a misunderstanding. The members of the Tribunal were prudent persons, quite respectable. We would not believe, they would act with any malice or bias. At the same time, we cannot brush aside a definite allegation made by the State through high officials. If we reconcile this two aspects that would only lead to the sole conclusion it was a sheer misunderstanding. In the case of Sabitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others (supra), the Apex Court deprecated the practice of adjudicating body to be made respondent before the superior Court. Mr. Aninda Lahiri relied on the decision in the case of Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh (supra) and Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (supra) to support his contention, Tribunal should not have been made party. We fully agree with such proposition. We feel, the Tribunal should not have been made a party. However, since personal allegations were made possibly, the applicant thought it fit to make them party respondents. In our view, this could have been avoided. We fully agree with such proposition. We feel, the Tribunal should not have been made a party. However, since personal allegations were made possibly, the applicant thought it fit to make them party respondents. In our view, this could have been avoided. In the case of Pepsi Food Limited and Another (supra), the Apex Court, in paragraph 27 questioned the implication of first respondent as a party to the proceeding. However, the Apex Court made such observation on the strength of their finding no allegation of personal bias was made against the presiding officers that would make the difference. On the issue of summoning the officers, Mr. Dutta would rely upon L. Chandra Kumar (supra), particularly paragraph 3 to 99 to indicate the scope and power of the Tribunal. He would rely upon the decision in the case of R.S. Singh (supra), when the Apex Court observed in the context the said case, High Court was not justified in summoning the officials. The Apex Court observed, judges should not have any ego problem, in particular, members of the higher judiciary should have great modesty and humility. The system functions on mutual respect between the judiciary and the executive. RESULT The Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary were present. They replied to the query made by the Tribunal members. Their appearances were dispensed with. Once the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary appeared, the presence of the Officer on Special Duty would be superfluous. Hence, such direction is set aside. The other part of the order directing Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary to appear has spent its force. Hence, we need not deal with the same. For one reason of the other, these two matters were kept pending resulting adjournment of the main matter before the Tribunal. We request the Tribunal to dispose of both the cases being O.A No. 1122 of 2012 O.A. No. 506 of 2013 at the earliest. We also direct the parties, particularly the State, to render all necessary cooperation to the Tribunal to have resolution of the controversy through adjudication. The Tribunal did their best to have a workable solution. The parties could not be ad idem. Hence, resolution of controversy through adjudication is the only solution and the Tribunal should venture for it. Appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. The Tribunal did their best to have a workable solution. The parties could not be ad idem. Hence, resolution of controversy through adjudication is the only solution and the Tribunal should venture for it. Appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. I agree.