- (1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution emerges from direction issued by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') on 07.12.2010 (P-11), while disposing of O.A. No. 70/PB/2010. According to the Tribunal, original applicant-Respondent No. 1 would be deemed to be confirmed on the post of Assistant Financial Advisor (for short 'AFA'), and he could be reverted back without following regular departmental enquiry because reversion is a major punishment. Accordingly, order dated 04.02.2010 (P-8), reverting applicant-Respondent No. 1 was set aside. The view of the Tribunal is CWP No. 124 of 2011 -2 discernible from para Nos. 7 and 8, which reads thus: 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant assailed the action of the Respondents primarily on the ground that the applicant could not have been reverted without holding the regular inquiry since he had already been serving on the promotion post for more than 3 years and therefore, would be deemed to have been confirmed. According to him, a confirmed employee could not have been reverted except as a punishment and that could have been awarded only after holding of a regular inquiry and not merely on the basis of a show cause notice. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, took support from many judgments of this Court and other Courts in which it has been laid down that the employer may rectify an error at any time after following due process of law. In this case, it was the view of the learned Counsel for the applicant that giving of a show cause notice was not enough of an opportunity for the applicant's views to be heard and considered. 8. After considering all the aspects of the case, we do not find force in the arguments presented on behalf of the applicant that he would be deemed to have been confirmed on the promotion post and therefore, could have been reverted only after holding due proceedings under the rules relating to awarding of major punishment, since reversion is a major punishment. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that CWP No. 124 of 2011 -3 the impugned orders suffer from this legal infirmity and are therefore, quashed and set aside. However, the Respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate action as they deem fit after following due process of law and rules relating to imposition of punishment according to the rules and law applicable to the applicant."
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal, the Union of India through its Officers has filed the instant petition under Article 226.
(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the sanctity of the examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Financial Advisor (AFA) is vitiated on account of various factors. In order to substantiate his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the preliminary investigation undertaken on 20.06.2007 (P-1), as also the statement of imputation of misconduct issued against the examiner Shri R.L. Gahlot (P-2). A perusal of the aforesaid documents would show that there have been irregularities and lapses in evaluating the answer sheets of written examination. The Petitioner-department may be able to substantiate the aforesaid lapses. However, Mr. Jindal, learned Counsel has stated that the Railway Board has decided to hold the written test and viva voce examination for promotion to the post of 'AFA' afresh because in the fresh evaluation undertaken from an independent agency outside the CWP No. 124 of 2011 -4-Rail Coach Factory, no person including applicant-Respondent No. 1 has qualified as per the requirement of provision made in para 219 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). According to para 219, for viva voce test, a candidate is required to secure 60% marks in the written test and on re-evaluation from an independent agency, no one had secured the cut-off-percentage of 60%.;