Contradictory tribunal orders are invalid; majority procedure must resolve member s before a lawful decision can stand.

A multi-member tribunal order containing irreconcilable operative conclusions could not be sustained in law. Where both members signed an order that simultaneously allowed and dismissed the application, the inconsistency on the face of the record showed there was no valid common operative direction. The governing tribunal rules contemplate a single unanimous pronouncement only where both members agree; if they differ, the point of difference must be resolved under the statutory majority mechanism, and if equally divided, by reference to the Chairman. The Karnataka HC set aside the contradictory tribunal order and remitted the original application for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tribunal order containing two inconsistent operative conclusions, both signed by the members of the Bench, can be sustained in law, and whether the matter had to be decided in accordance with the majority mechanism under the governing tribunal rules and statute.

Analysis: The order of the Tribunal contained one part allowing the application and another part dismissing it, both bearing the signatures of both members. The inconsistency was apparent on the face of the record and could not be treated as a valid common operative order. Rule 106 and Rule 107 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 contemplate pronouncement of an order by one member only where the Bench has reached unanimity in the ultimate operative direction. Where the members differ, the statutory scheme under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 requires the point of difference to be resolved according to the majority, and if equally divided, by reference to the Chairman. The simultaneous presence of conflicting operative conclusions therefore could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was unsustainable and was set aside, with restoration of the original application to the Tribunal for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the contradictory Tribunal order was annulled, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of a multi-member tribunal that embodies irreconcilable operative conclusions cannot stand; where members differ, the statutory majority procedure must be followed, and unilateral or contradictory disposal is invalid.

---