- (1.) The respondent, who was a Pharmacist at the relevant time, was removed from service by an order made pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry initiated against him. An appeal was preferred by him against that order and the appellate authority upheld the order made by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, revision proceedings were initiated and the revisional authority reduced the punishment from removal from service to that of reduction in time scale of pay of the two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect with a direction that the appellant (respondent herein) may be allowed to be posted at Delhi area but outside the central Hospital as well as Queens road Hospital, Delhi. That order was challenged by an application before the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi. The tribunal by an order made on 28/9/1993 allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the revisional authority and directed the revisional authority to pass appropriate order afresh on merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the course of the order to the effect that "The revisional authority should decide the revision application of the respondent afresh after taking into consideration the specific plea of the petitioner that the enquiry officer could not take into account the statements of the witnesses recorded in the fact-finding enquiry. It shall decide any other plea which the petitioner may raise before it within a period of three months".
(2.) Thereafter an application was filed before the tribunal staling that the respondents had not complied with the order made by the tribunal earlier as a punishment of removal from service had been imposed against him. The tribunal after considering the contentions on either side ultimately stated as follows: "The true spirit of the order, if it is still not clear to the respondent is made clear as follows: the General Manager has to consider the plea of the petitioner in the revision petition that the order of the disciplinary authority and the enquiry proceedings is vitiated and take an appropriate decision on the point. If the General Manager finds on such consideration that the finding of guilt is still unaffected, pass a final order maintaining the penalty of reduction in pay awarded by the earlier order of the general Manager which was impugned in the OA. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and the fresh order on the revision petition shall be passed and communicated within one month from today as the order is pronounced today in the open court. List this contempt petition for reporting compliance of the abovesaid direction and for further steps on 22/7/1996. "
(3.) This order is in challenge before us. On 28/4/1997, this court while granting leave to appeal stayed the operation of the order pending disposal of the appeal, however making it clear that it is open to the respondent to challenge the order of removal from service, if he is, otherwise, entitled to do so in law. That order of removal from service made by the respondent has been challenged separately and we are not concerned with the same in these proceedings.;