Verification Clause as per Special Rules Validly Substitutes Affidavits in Administrative Tribunal Pleadings

The applicant, an Assistant in the Military Engineer Services (MES), filed an Original Application (O.A.) challenging an order dated 11.08.2025.

This impugned order, passed by the Headquarters Chief Engineer Central Command, advised the applicant to address his grievances to his next superior officer.

The applicant also sought directions (mandamus) against various authorities and a private respondent (Respondent No. 5) to disclose specific service records, including "Cryptic Movement orders," "Move Sanction certificates," and information regarding the opening/closing hours of the establishment.

A preliminary objection was raised by the applicant regarding the validity of the respondents' reply, asserting it must be supported by an affidavit under Section 193 of the IPC rather than a simple verification.

1. Whether pleadings before the Central Administrative Tribunal must be supported by a sworn affidavit or if a verification clause is sufficient under the relevant rules.

2. Whether the communication directing an employee to approach a superior officer constitutes a challengeable order and if the reliefs seeking disclosure of departmental documents are maintainable in this forum.

Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and Rules 4, 5, and 6 of Chapter III of the CAT Rules of Practice, 1993, which prescribe that pleadings are to be supported by a "Verification" in a specific proforma (Appendix A, Form-I).

While Section 30 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, deems proceedings to be judicial for the purposes of the IPC, the special rules framed under the Act prioritize the verification clause for employee grievances over traditional affidavits.

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural objection, holding that since the CAT is a creature of a Special Act with its own delegated rules (Procedure Rules, 1987 and Rules of Practice, 1993), the verification clause is legally acceptable and sufficient.

The Tribunal found the O.A. to be a "misconceived and abuse of judicial proceeding."

It reasoned that the order dated 11.08.2025 was merely administrative advice to follow the chain of command and did not infringe upon legal rights.

The Tribunal observed that the prayers for disclosure of "Move Sanction certificates" and office timings were vague or fell under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, making the Tribunal an inappropriate forum for such requests.

The failure to implead the specific officer who passed the impugned order as a party further weakened the applicant's case.

It dismissed the Original Application as misconceived, holding that the applicant failed to challenge a substantive order and sought reliefs that were outside the Tribunal's typical jurisdiction or were better suited for RTI.

The applicant was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited with the CAT Bar Association, Allahabad.