JUDGMENT :

Satya Brata Sinha, J.

This Writ Petition is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 14-12-1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No. 1636 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner was disposed of in the following terms:

"(a) The applicant may, if so advised, submit an appeal to the appropriate appellate authority against the penalty order dated 4-11-1997 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) His consequential reversion order dated 19-11-1997 is in accordance with the OM dated 14-9-92.

(c) If such an appeal is received, the appropriate appellate authority shall consider the same as per rules and on merits expeditiously.

(d) The appellate authority shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant, if he so desires.

(e) The period of the applicant's absence from duty from 12-12-1997 to 31-1-98 (or till a suitable date) needs to be regularised by the grant of such leave as may be entitled to. This should be done within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

2. The fact of the matter is as follows:

While the petitioner was working as Inspector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, he was proceeded in a departmental enquiry on the charge that he did not conduct PBC checks in respect of M/s S.K. Textile Industries Private Ltd., and failed to draw adequate number of samples from the said unit. The enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner by two stages for a period of one year. The said order was, however, set aside by the Tribunal by order dated 23-4-93 in O.A.No. 343 of 1993 with a direction to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of submission of the enquiry report and to intimate him that the disciplinary authority had differed from the findings of the enquiry officer and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make his explanation the reagainst which was upheld by the Apex Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was given memo dated 6-10-1994 duly enclosing the report of the enquiry officer calling his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-11-1994. Thereafter the disciplinary authority after recording reasons for disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer gave another opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation by letter dated 8-3-1995 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11-6-1995.

3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Superintendent by order dated 25-2-1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of one year from the date of the order dated 4-11-1997. By another order dated 19-11-1997 the petitioner was reverted to the cadre of Inspector of Central Excise.

4. The petitioner contends that after he submitted his explanation, the disciplinary authority by letter dated 10-12-1996 addressed the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Though the disciplinary was convinced to drop further proceedings, the CVC insisted for imposition of a penalty and it was only at the instance of the CVC, the impugned punishment was imposed. Therefore, there was no independent application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. Even though such a contention was raised, the Tribunal did not record any finding to that effect.

5. The short point, which arises for consideration in this application, is as to whether any punishment can be imposed on the basis of the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission?

6. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the petitioner should take recourse to the remedy of internal appeal. While doing so, however, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the matter on merits also an