- (1.) By this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the Union of India, has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 137 of 2006 whereby it has set aside the order of penalty of withholding one annual increment passed against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding.
(2.) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent No. 1, who is a teacher, was subjected to an enquiry on the charge of misconduct alleging that he had held the hand of lady teacher, Ms. Richa Srivastava. The enquiry was conducted by a committee which came to a conclusion that there was no substance in the allegation made against the respondent and the lady- complainant was instigated to file the complaint against the respondent. In the departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that nothing was proved against the delinquent in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has recorded that since there are contradictions in the statements of Ms. Srivastava and also due to lack of direct and circumstantial evidences, the charges are not proved. In spite of these finding recorded by Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of withholding one annual increment. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal, further directed that the case of the respondent-delinquent for promotion should be considered forthwith.
(3.) Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, assailed that part of the direction given by the Tribunal for considering the case of the respondent for promotion. According to the learned counsel while issuing such direction the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. From the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding the name of the respondent was recommended for promotion but in view of the pendency of the proceeding his name was kept in sealed cover.;