A coordinate bench must follow a High Court-affirmed decision on the same issue.

The applicants, serving as Inspectors of Central Excise, challenged the respondents’ communication/order dated 1 July 2019 concerning the review of the Departmental Promotion Committee and apprehended reversion from the post of Inspector

The respondents filed MA No. 3608/2026 seeking early disposal of the Original Application, contending that the same issue had already been decided against the employees by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Sri Indu Sekharan K. v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 170/00771/2019, whose decision was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 14714/2021 and connected matters

The respondents also relied on the subsequent decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Principal Bench in OA No. 1827/2020, which dismissed a challenge to the same communication dated 1 July 2019

Separately, Applicant No. 1 sought withdrawal from the array of applicants through MA No. 3746/2026; the Tribunal held that the request did not survive for consideration at that stage

Whether Applicant No. 1 should be permitted to withdraw from the array of applicants in OA No. 1931/2020?

Whether the issue raised in OA No. 1931/2020 was covered by the binding or persuasive effect of the decisions concerning the communication/order dated 1 July 2019, including the decision of the Bangalore Bench affirmed by the Karnataka High Court and the Coordinate Bench decision in OA No. 1827/2020?

Whether OA No. 1931/2020 should be dismissed by following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in OA No. 1827/2020?

The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, requiring a Bench to follow the decision of a Coordinate Bench on the same issue, particularly where the underlying decision of another Bench has been affirmed by a High Court

It relied on the Bangalore Bench’s decision in Sri Indu Sekharan K. v. Union of India & Ors., which rejected the challenge to the communication dated 1 July 2019, and on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated 12 August 2021 affirming that decision

It further applied the Coordinate Bench’s decision in OA No. 1827/2020, which treated the Bangalore Bench judgment as a binding precedent and dismissed the challenge to the same communication

No specific statutory provision was invoked as the decisive basis for the holding

The Tribunal found that the present OA involved the same communication/order dated 1 July 2019 that had already been considered by the Bangalore Bench and subsequently upheld by the Karnataka High Court

The Coordinate Bench had thereafter examined the same controversy in OA No. 1827/2020 and dismissed the challenge, expressly relying on the affirmed Bangalore Bench decision

Applying judicial discipline, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for taking a contrary view in OA No. 1931/2020, especially when the earlier decision had received affirmation from the High Court

As regards MA No. 3746/2026, the Tribunal held that the request to withdraw Applicant No. 1 no longer survived for consideration at that stage

Following the Coordinate Bench’s judgment in OA No. 1827/2020 and the affirmed decision of the Bangalore Bench, the Tribunal dismissed OA No. 1931/2020

MA No. 3608/2026, seeking early disposal of the OA, was consequently disposed of. Any subsisting interim order was vacated, and there was no order as to costs