- (1.) Heard Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.908 of 2005, by which the punishment order dated 3.5.2005 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired Superintendent of Central Excise. By the order dated 3.5.2005, he has been awarded punishment reducing monthly pension by 25%. It appears that before awarding the aforesaid punishment, an advice has been taken by the disciplinary authority under Rule 15 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, from the Commission and on the basis of advice of the Commission, the punishment order has been passed. Before the tribunal, it was contended by the respondent that without providing the copy of the advice of the Commission the impugned punishment order dated 3.5.2005 has been passed. The tribunal accepted the contention of the petitioner and set aside the impugned order dated 3.5.2005 and directed the petitioner to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to meet the advice dated 2.5.2005 of the Union Public Service Commission, which was heavily relied upon by the petitioner.;