-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 47 OF 2009 Union of India and others ... Petitioners versus Sambhaji Vishnu Gadekar and another .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 48 OF 2009 Union of India and others ... Petitioners versus Sambhaji Vishnu Gadekar and another .. Respondents In both matters: Mr. V.G. Rege for the petitioners. Mr. D. V.Gangal instructed by Priyanka Mehndiratta for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: APRIL 22, 2009 P.C. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, permission to delete respondent No.2 from the array of parties is granted. 2. Rule. Learned counsel for respondent waives service of rule. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. -2- 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th September, 2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai, whereby the Tribunal has directed the Income-tax Department to take a final decision within a period of three months from the date of the order. The Tribunal has further observed that and while taking a final decision, a lenient view should be taken and sympathetic approach should be adopted. The Tribunal has also observed certain opinion regarding merits of the enquiry proceedings. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India, that when there was no final order of punishment passed against the respondent, the application before the Tribunal was not maintainable as it was premature. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has erred in making observations to the effect that the Administration should take a sympathetic view of the matter as the applicant is going to retire within ten years. It is submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order were not called for as the matter was at the premature stage. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently submitted that without there being any serious allegation against the respondent, he was subjected to departmental proceedings and this is not a fit case in which maximum penalty can be passed against the respondent. It -3- is submitted that in a given case, an employee can approach the Tribunal even at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the respondent had preferred an application before the Tribunal at a stage when no final order was passed in the departmental enquiry. It is required to be noted that the respondent approached the Tribunal even at the stage of issuance of charge sheet, though no final order was passed. It is not in dispute that the department was not lacking jurisdiction in issuing the charge-sheet. It is also unfortunate that the Tribunal granted stay against the Enquiry Officer's report. In a matter of such nature, we are of the opinion that Tribunal should not have entertained the application unless it is found that the Department lacks inherent jurisdiction, which is not the fact in this case. The delinquent employee should have allowed the disciplinary authority to complete the proceedings and after the final order the delinquent should have approached the Tribunal, if the order is against him. At such a stage it was not proper for the Tribunal to intercept the departmental proceedings. If ultimately the final order is passed which may be contrary to law or if any punishment is awarded which is shockingly disproportionate to the charge-sheeted employee, naturally at that stage the Court can interfere with the said proceedings. 7. Though we do not approve the order of the Tribunal in this behalf, -4- we now direct the petitioner to pass the final order on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report within two months from today. It is needless to say that before passing such order, whatever may be the say of the respondent to the Enquiry officer's report, the same shall be taken into account and the final order be passed in accordance with law. In case any adverse order is passed by the disciplinary authority, the said order may not be implemented for a period of four weeks from the date of such order to enable the respondent to adopt appropriate proceedings according to law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter one way or the other. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected of the disciplinary authority to pass an appropriate order in its wisdom. However, if the order is against the respondent, the respondent can raise all available points in appropriate proceedings thereafter. 8. Subject to what is stated above, both the petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is partly made absolute with no order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.