ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner at present is working in the capacity of Assistant Conservator of Forests under the Department of Environment and Forest, A and N Administration, Port Blair. It appears that when the writ petitioner was holding the post of Ranger in the year 1997, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. It is the case of the petitioner that he was exonerated in the said proceeding and no punishment was imposed upon him. Now, the petitioner seeks benefit of his regular employment during the time he was subjected to disciplinary proceeding specific case of the petitioner is that he was denied promotion in regular course during the period the disciplinary proceeding was continuing against him. In this writ petition, he wants such benefit to be restored.
(2.) The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed his application being OA No. 15/AN/2011 dated 14.12.2011, observing: "5. It is claimed that he ought to have been granted ad hoc promotion as the proceedings in respect of Shri Ajay Kumar and Shri M.V. Babu were yet to be finalized. They have not been impleaded. The order promoting them to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is also not on record of the O.A. There is no pleading as to from which date they were appointed. If the person is subsequently exonerated of the charges then as per DOPT O.M. he is required to be promoted from the date the vacancy arose after reverting the persons if need be. 5. In the absence of the same it is not possible to examine as to whether the applicant could have been granted ad hoc promotion retrospectively and as to whether such ad hoc service can be taken into account for the purpose of pay fixation on regular promotion."
(3.) It is this order which is under challenge in this proceeding. We find from the observation of the Tribunal that there was no definite finding to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to promotion under the law. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on technical grounds. The case of the petitioner before us is that all the materials were available before the Tribunal and his case was rejected without going into details. In our opinion, the matter ought to have been gone into in detail and not rejected on the two grounds as indicated in the paragraphs under reference. We find that the order impugned is not conclusive, and also does not disclose sufficient reasons for rejection of the plea of the petitioner.;