- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3596 OF 2003 ... Union of India through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & ors. ....Petitioners v/s. Shri Suhas Anant Hirlekar ....Respondent ... Mr.A.D.Kango i/b Ms.P.P.Bhosale for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 26TH MARCH, 2008 - 2 - P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner-Union of India challenges the order dated 27th May, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.909 of 1997. Challenge to the order is only to the extent that the tribunal has directed the Union of India to reconsider the decision taken in the meeting of the DPC in relation to the question of promotion of the Respondent to the post of Inspector. 2. The learned Counsel submits that what is contained in the order of the Tribunal is contradictory and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. 3. We have perused the record. We find that even according to the Central Administrative Tribunal the criteria for promotion to the post of Inspector is merit -cum-seniority. The Departmental Promotional Committee on 12-6-1997 considered the Respondent for promotion to the post of Inspector. They considered his record for five years and on finding that he was - 3 - awarded penalty of censure on 29-3-1996 held that he is not fit for promotion. In paragraph 6 of the order this aspect has been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has observed thus in paragraph 6:- 6. Censure is the penalty which was awarded on 29-3-1996 while the DPC met on 12-6-1997 took into consideration the circumstances in which the penalty of Censure was awarded. We do not find any error in respect of taking the said circumstances into consideration. 4. It is clear from paragraph quoted above that according to the Tribunal the action of the DPC of taking into consideration the penalty of censure is valid and the Respondent was denied promotion only because of the penalty. However, in paragraph 7 the Tribunal has stated that the Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the DPC and holds that the conclusion reached by the DPC and the procedure adopted in reaching that conclusion is proper or not can not be examined by the Tribunal. Paragraph 7 reads as under:- 7. After considering the DPC finding, we are - 4 - of the considered view that though the Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the DPC but certainly the Tribunal has power to take into consideration how the DPC reached to a conclusion and the procedure adopted in reaching to the said conclusion is warranted by law or not can be examined by the Tribunal. As such we are of the considered opinion that the DPC took into consideration the said fact which ought not to have taken into consideration. As such, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived by the DPC cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 5. It is obvious that what is contained in paragraph 7 is contrary to the paragraph 6 quoted above. The tribunal though has held that the procedure adopted in reaching the conclusion by the DPC is not proper, but the tribunal has not indicated as to how the procedure was wrong, it was contrary to what law. 6. In our opinion, therefore, the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in so far as it directs convening the DPC meeting for reconsideration - 5 - of its decision in relation to the question of promotion of the Respondent to the post of Inspector is liable to be set aside and remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. We propose to remand the matter back to the tribunal, firstly because the conclusion reached in paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 appears to be contradictory and it is for the Tribunal to reexamine the matter, and secondly, the Respondent has not been appearing in the matter though he has been served. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i) The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned in the petition is set aside only to the extent it directs reconvening the DPC for reconsideration of its decision in relation to the question of promotion of the Respondent to the post of Inspector. (ii) Matter is remitted back to the tribunal for - 6 - denovo consideration and hearing only to the extent indicated above. (iii) In view of the fact that the matter is pending for quite some time, the tribunal shall hear and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. (iv) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)