UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI Vs. DR P.K. SRIHARI AGE ABOUT MAJOR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has quashed Annexures 'A4' and 'A7' and there is further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Commissioner from the date on which his immediate juniors were considered for promotion with consequential benefits.

(2.) We have heard Mr. .Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Sugumaran S., learned Counsel appearing for the respondent,

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that since the investigation report was not considered by the respondent-delinquent Officer at the time when he exercised his power during the assessment proceedings, it would attract disciplinary action and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment at the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. He submitted that there was no breach of principles of natural justice and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the disciplinary authority.