9 #13 %.01.05.2009 Present: Mr. H.K.Gangwani for the Petitioner. Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj for the Respondent. Caveat No. 63/2009 Appearance has been entered on behalf of the respondent, the Caveat stands disposed of. CM No. 5811/2009 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of WP(C) No. 8656/2009 Rule D.B. After hearing the matter finally and going through the impugnedjudgment of the Tribunalwe find that the Tribunal has primarily concerned itself with the issue that the charge sheet which has contained specific charge supported by detailed imputation and further that when the charge against the respondent was that he had not disposed of the applicationsunder Section 297 as per Citizens' Charter within 30 days and delayed disposal of such applications by raising irrelevant queries. Such a Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified v/ chargeshouldnothave been imposeduponthe respondentas it was not part of his duties to dispose of the applicationsunder Section 297. We however, notice that there were two components of charge leveledagainstthe respondent.The first chargewas that the respondentdid not adhere to the Citizens Charter of the Ministry which provides for a time limit of 30 days within which the applicationsreceivedunder Section297 are to be disposedof. This chargewas in fact notpressedduringthe enquiry but the Tribunalhas in its mostpartof the impugnedjudgmenthas discussed this aspect. The second componentof the charge was that the respondent raised irrelevantqueries which were not germane to the subject matter of Section 297 of the Companies Act and thus delayed the disposal of applications.Learned counsel for the petitionerhas taken us through the statementof imputationsof misconductwhere these aspects are mentioned in detail. He has also taken us through the findings of the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. We feel that the respondent had an arguable case on this aspect which has not even been examined or considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the respondent had made various other submissions which the Tribunal did not consider as the applicationof the respondenthad allowedonly on the aforesaidground. In / these circumstances, both the parties agree that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh and complete consideration on the entire issue. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The parties shallappearbeforethe Tribunalon 26'^May, 2009. May 01, 2009 hk A.ICSIKRI, J SURESH KAIT, J