RDDBFI Section 14: Vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceedings

Vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceedings

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

If, for any reason other than temporary absence, any vacancy occurs in the office of the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal or the Chairperson of an Appellate Tribunal, then the Central Government shall appoint another person in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill the vacancy and the proceedings may be continued before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal from the stage at which the vacancy is filled.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Presiding Officer Sec 2(j) Chairperson DRAT Sec 2(da) Orders Final Sec 16

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 14

Section 14 provides for the filling of casual vacancies in the office of the Presiding Officer or Chairperson, and enacts the statutory de facto doctrine protecting proceedings from being invalidated by reason of vacancy or constitutional defect.

Executive Duty to Fill Vacancies: Sub-section (1) mandates that if any vacancy occurs in the office of the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal or the Chairperson of an Appellate Tribunal, the Central Government shall appoint another person in accordance with the provisions of the Act to fill the vacancy.
Continuity of Adjudicatory Functions: Empowers the Central Government or the Chairperson of the DRAT to authorize an officer of an adjacent DRT to hold additional charge to prevent the stoppage of recovery proceedings.
Statutory Validation and De Facto Protection: Sub-section (2) explicitly commands that no act or proceeding of a Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal shall be called in question in any manner on the ground merely of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of a Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of A.P. (1981) 3 SCC 132: The Supreme Court established the de facto doctrine, holding that the acts of a de facto judge performed under color of authority are valid and binding upon third parties, and cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground that the judge's appointment was defective.
International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator (2017) 16 SCC 137: The Supreme Court recognized that operational continuity across DRTs during vacancies through additional charge notifications is valid and necessary to prevent frustration of statutory recovery processes.
Central Bank of India v. C. Elango (2000) 10 SCC 436: The Supreme Court held that procedural orders passed by a Presiding Officer holding additional charge or pending notification of a regular vacancy are protected against jurisdictional challenges by virtue of statutory validation clauses.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Under Section 14(2), a litigant cannot mount a collateral challenge against a final judgment or recovery certificate on the ground that the Presiding Officer's tenure had expired, had a technical appointment flaw, or was discharging dual charge. Any challenge to the legal authority of the presiding officer must be mounted through a direct writ of quo warranto, not as a ground of appeal against the recovery order.