- (1.) THE order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is under challenge by the Department in this writ petition. The delinquent -respondent was punished by the disciplinary authority for having not informed the authority about the visit of Ahmedabad in his tour report after completion of his tour. The Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the materials and also after hearing learned counsel for the parties found that the inquiry and its consequent punishment is not legal since the delinquent earlier was subjected to the preliminary inquiry by the disciplinary authority by which the punishment was imposed, being aggrieved by this order, writ petition has been filed by the Department.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent. There is no dispute in the fact that the disciplinary authority has conducted preliminary inquiry with regard to the charge and after giving opportunity to the delinquent and after perusing reply statement made by the delinquent, concluded that he was found guilty of the charge and imposed the punishment of censure which is a minor punishment. Thus, it is clear that no regular inquiry was conducted with reference to penalty but strangely disciplinary authority referred the matter for the second stage advice to the Central Vigilance Commission for its opinion. Curiously the Central Vigilance Commission advised the disciplinary authority to conduct major penalty proceedings. Accordingly, disciplinary authority conducted an inquiry afresh appointing the Inquiry Officer who, in turn, by giving opportunity to delinquent submitted inquiry report which was sent to the disciplinary authority who imposed punishment of withholding increments of four years without cumulative effect but it was later modified by one year cumulative. On going through the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is clear that the inquiry proceeding which was conducted by the Inquiry Officer in pursuance of the order of the disciplinary authority on the basis of the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission is not valid especially in the light of the fact that disciplinary authority concluded that charge was proved and the delinquent is liable to be only censured. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that censure order has not been intimated to the delinquent and for that reason it is contended that order has not been given effect to. This contention, in our view, does not merit acceptance for the reason that the disciplinary authority is the authority to decide the nature of the inquiry and in this case disciplinary authority originally decided to impose minor penalty and imposed the same. Having done so, it was not proper on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to seek advice of the Central Vigilance Commission for the second stage inquiry and its advice amounts to really reopening of the inquiry. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ;