GDC Principal’s unconditional apology: ‘Arbitrator of choice’ by kite flying impermissible, recusal is upon judges: CAT

Srinagar, Aug 3: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has accepted an “unconditional apology” from Dr Sandeep Kaur Bali, officiating Principal Dental College (GDC) Srinagar for seeking recusal of one of the members of a bench hearing a case related to her appointment as Principal.

Dr Bali had moved an application before the bench comprising M S Latief Member (J) and Prasant Kumar Member (A), seeking recusal of the Member from the bench. The bench is hearing Dr Altaf Hussain Chalkoo’s plea which questions Dr Bali’s look-after charge as Principal GDC Srinagar.

In her plea on recusal, Dr Bali had said that the Member was frequently visiting the office chamber of Dr Chalkoo for some dental issue and that she would not get a fair trial “for a bias, she suspected”.

Although, Dr Kaur subsequently was permitted to withdraw the plea on recusal as her other plea for the purpose was allowed by the tribunal, but it necessitated for the bench to take call on whether she could withdraw the plea seeking recusal of a member from the bench.

“The question which necessitates examination in the instant case is whether the apology tendered by the applicant at this stage, merits acceptance. It is no doubt true that the applicant has sought pardon and has sought her unconditional apology expressing her remorse” the bench said.

The tribunal observed that the plea seeking recusal of the Member “by its very nature is without any valid reason and is not substantiated by any cogent proof or evidence”.

It noted that “prima facie”, the application was an interference with the course of justice as the same was bereft of any truth and was not supported by any evidence. “ It( application) is a bald assertion, only to delay the proceedings in the matter and a ploy to choose her arbitrator, according to her own choice by adopting a unique method of kite flying in order to accomplish her desire for forum shopping which in most of the cases is impermissible in law”.

While the bench held that such an application was nothing but a subterfuge only to indulge in opening flood gates of forum shopping, it noted that the same would only amount to interference with the administration of justice and to cast a doubt about the impartiality of the Judge “which is tantamount to contempt of court”.

The bench observed that freedom of recusal is upon the judges who are “seisin” of the matter and it is for the judge to recuse in a matter for any personal reason or on some other reasonable ground.

It held that seeking recusal without any valid reason or grounds from a bench to hear a matter is clear interference in the administration of justice and nothing but to disturb the process of court proceedings.

While the tribunal observed that the fact of the matter was that even a judge is a citizen who could suffer from the medical exigency and has every right to seek assistance from a government hospital or a government doctor whosoever he is.

The officiating Principal of GDC Srinagar, Dr Bali, cannot deter a patient from entering into a hospital, even if he holds a position of a judge or otherwise for the reason that she is one of the respondents in a case before the bench, the tribunal said.

“Any interference with the majesty of law is punishable as Contempt of Court, when this Court, in terms of the Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has the power to punish for contempt”.

While the tribunal pointed out that it was true that Dr Bali had sought her unconditional apology expressing her remorse”, it said: “It is equally open to the court in an appropriate case to accept an unconditional apology based on 'the factual position, the remorse shown, the regret expressed and more of surrendering to the mercy of the Court”.

An apology, the tribunal said, could be accepted in cases where the conduct, for which the apology was given,

was such that it could be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court.

The court made it clear that an apology could not be accepted, in case, it was hollow, with no remorse, regret or repentance, or was only a device to escape the rigour of law. “Such an apology is merely a paper apology”.

In response to the query by the court, senior counsel, representing Dr Bali submitted that he along with his client has surrendered to the majesty of the Court. The Court observed that ordinarily, an apology ought not be rejected particularly when it is made at the very initial stage of the proceedings.

Dr Bali, it observed, has shown all remorse and the apology being sincere and observing her conduct in the Court which appeared to be remorseful and sincere and not a device to escape the rigor of the law, is as such is accepted.

However, the tribunal cautioned Dr Bali against indulging in such acts in future which have the tendency to lower the majesty of the Courts or would amount to interference with the administration of justice.

Eventually, the bench allowed Dr Bali’s plea seeking withdrawal of the application on recusal of the Member.

Meanwhile the tribunal directed the parties who have not filed their objections to the main plea challenging the appointment of officiating principal GDC Srinagar to file the same by August 20.