A tribunal must give both parties a fair opportunity to plead after allowing amendment.

The petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of his O.A. and review application.

The underlying disciplinary proceedings began with a charge-sheet in 2009; the punishment was reduced on appeal to censure in 2011.

The Railway revisional authority subsequently issued repeated show-cause notices, which the Tribunal quashed in earlier proceedings.

While the petitioner’s third O.A., challenging a further notice, was pending, the Railways compulsorily retired him with two-thirds pension and gratuity in 2017.

The Tribunal allowed his application to amend the O.A. to challenge that order on 25 April 2025, but closed the matter for judgment the same day, before the amendment was formally made or the Railways could respond to it.

The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 27 May 2025 and the review on 31 July 2025.

1. Whether the Tribunal denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to challenge the 2017 compulsory-retirement order by allowing amendment of the O.A. but closing the matter for judgment before the amendment was completed.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the O.A. and review application should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh consideration.

A judicial forum or tribunal must follow lawful procedure and adhere to the principles of natural justice, including affording each party a fair opportunity to present its case.

Justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done.

The Tribunal’s order permitting amendment entitled the petitioner to bring his challenge to the 2017 compulsory-retirement order into the O.A. Yet, by closing the matter for judgment on the same day, the Tribunal prevented the amendment from being formally incorporated and gave the Railways no opportunity to answer the new challenge.

The Tribunal’s main judgment also did not address the compulsory-retirement order. Given these procedural deficiencies, the review should have been allowed to provide both sides a fair opportunity to address the amended case.

It directed that the matter be placed before a differently constituted Bench and permitted the Railways to file a reply to the amended O.A.; all parties’ contentions were left open for consideration on the merits.