Tribunal cannot dismiss a review solely by relying on an earlier dismissal without hearing parties.

The petitioners challenged the orders dated 22 April 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3626/2023 and dated 25 February 2026 passed in RA No. 75/2025.

The OA had previously been challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 2534/2025, in which the Court declined interference because the Tribunal’s order had been passed in accordance with the submissions made by the parties, while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue review or any other appropriate application before the Tribunal.

Pursuant to that liberty, the petitioner filed RA No. 75/2025.

The Tribunal dismissed the review application by relying on the dismissal of an earlier RA No. 172/2025, which had itself been dismissed in circulation without hearing the parties.

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing RA No. 75/2025 by relying on the dismissal of an earlier review application that had been disposed of in circulation without hearing the parties.

Whether RA No. 75/2025 should be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration after hearing the parties, without the High Court expressing any view on the merits of the review application.

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and the right to be heard, holding that a review application should not be rejected merely by relying on an earlier order passed without hearing the parties.

It also applied the limited scope of judicial review in such circumstances: where the defect concerns the manner of disposal and denial of an effective hearing, the appropriate relief is remand for reconsideration rather than adjudication of the merits by the writ court.

The Court further recognised that the Tribunal retained discretion to determine whether the review was maintainable or justified, particularly because the original OA order had been passed in accordance with the petitioner’s own submissions.

Although the respondent correctly submitted that RA No. 75/2025 had not technically been dismissed in circulation, the Court examined the substance of the Tribunal’s order and found that it had been dismissed merely by following the dismissal of RA No. 172/2025, which had been decided in circulation without hearing the parties.

Since the petitioner had filed RA No. 75/2025 pursuant to the liberty granted in the earlier writ proceedings, the Tribunal was required to consider it independently after hearing the parties.

The Court therefore found a procedural defect warranting interference, but expressly declined to decide whether the review application had merit, especially in view of the fact that the original OA order had followed the petitioner’s submissions.

The Tribunal was left free to decide both the review application and whether review was justified, including in light of the petitioner’s prior submissions in the OA.

The Court clarified that it was not controlling or curtailing the Tribunal’s discretion on the merits.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with directions to the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 25 September 2026 and without seeking adjournment on that date.