- (1.) The appellant is an Income Tax Officer. A charge sheet dated 9.3.1999 was issued to him for alleged misconduct. An enquiry was held into the charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22.11.2000 holding that the charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Report, and after giving notice to the appellant made an order dated 25.11.2003 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by four stages for a period of four years with a direction that appellant will not earn increments during the period of reduction.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the imposition of punishment the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before directing notice, the Tribunal considered the question of maintainability, as appellant had filed original application without exhausting the remedy by way of appeal. The Tribunal received the application as maintainable by the following order: 'It transpires from the record that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is being challenged by the applicant without restoring the remedy of appeal. However, Mr. Kureshi points out that this is the case whereof Disciplinary Authority is rather forced to impose the penalty which also suggests that the Appellate Authority also will be forced to reject the appeal, even if it is preferred. CVC has taken a particular view in spite of findings of the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority being inclined to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer. It has been over ruled by the CVC. Considering the grievance made and considering the nature of the OA, we direct the issuance of notice to the respondent, returnable on 13.2.2004'. 2.1. Thereafter, the application was heard. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.4.2005 allowed the application and quashed the order of the Disciplinary Authority reserving liberty to the respondents herein to pass an order in accordance with the opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority before referring the matter to CVC for reconsideration of its advice.
(3.) The respondent challenged the said order before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents by order dated 29.3.2006 and set aside the order of the Tribunal merely on the ground that the appellant had not exhausted the remedy by way of appeal before approaching the Tribunal. The said order is challenged by the appellant.;