Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 3.12.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) whereby and whereunder it rejected two applications for enlargement of time filed by the petitioner herein to complete the departmental proceeding in terms of an order dated 10.6.97 passed in M.A No 254 of 1996 with O.A. No 436 of 1996.
(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a short compass.
(3.) The respondent herein had been working as Shop Superintendent in Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. He was served with a major penalty charge-sheet dated 28.10.92 for certain alleged gross misconduct committed by him in the year 1989 when he was working as an Assistant Inspecting Engineer(M) on deputation to Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES for short) said to be a non-Governmental Establishment under the Railway Board. The respondent herein filed a show cause. In the meantime, promotion was due to him where for he had appeared in the written and viva-voce test in August, 1993 and January 1994. He was an empanelled candidate. Some persons who were junior to him had been promoted but the respondent herein had not been considered for promotion in view of the pendency of the aforementioned departmental proceeding. The respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal and by an order dated 10.6.97 the learned Tribunal directed: "11. The petitioner has also pointed out that under Board's letter, an outer limit of 470 days has been fixed for finalisation of DA proceeding. Even if this is considered to be directory and mandatory, the respondents are certainly expected to make all endeavour to stick to it and not observe it in its breach. There is hardly any satisfactory explanation for the tardy progress or rather no progress made in the DA proceeding over these years. If inspite of best efforts if the respondents DA proceeding could not be finalised for unavoidable reason or due to laches on the part of the delinquest, then there might be some valid ground for inability to conclude the DA proceeding within the time limit fixed by the Board: but in the present case, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the Board's letter is only directory and not mandatory, which would only betray contumacious disregard for the Board's letter".;