The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited role of judicial review in matters concerning the extension of time for completing disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and adherence to procedural requirements.

( 1 ) HAVING regard to the nature of issue raised before us it is not necessary to take note of the facts in detail, suffice is to state that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 7. 7. 2004 and inquiry initiated against him on the basis of said charge-sheet by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting officer. On the ground that charge leveled in the said charge-sheet was more than 15 years old, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 1531/2005 for quashing of the charge-sheet and protection of his service rights including promotion. This OA was disposed of vide orders dated 7. 11. 2005 by the Tribunal. Charge-sheet was not quashed but the respondents were given two months" time to complete the inquiry failing which it was directed that the proceedings would abate. The petitioner even filed Revision Petition which was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE inquiry could not be completed within two months and the respondents filed m. A. No. 133/2006 seeking extension of further four months time to complete the inquiry. Vide orders dated 21. 2. 2006 three months" extension was granted to complete the proceedings and the Department was directed to hold the proceedings on day-to-day basis without fail. The petitioner sought review of this order as well which review application was dismissed. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the writ petition which was disposed of vide orders dated 24. 3. 2006 observing as under:

"we are of the view that since extension has already been granted, inquiry should be completed within the period of extension and no further time is required to be granted for completing the inquiry, provided the petitioner cooperates for expeditious disposal of the inquiry. The impugned order states that the disciplinary proceedings shall be held day-to-day. The petitioner shall co-operate with the inquiry. "

( 3 ) THE inquiry could not be completed even within the aforesaid extended time. The respondents again moved M. A. No. 992/2006 on 31. 5. 2006 seeking further extension of one month"s time. This application came up for hearing on 12. 7. 2006 and was adjourned to 1. 8. 2006. In the meantime orders dated 18. 7. 2006 were passed by the Department imposing the penalty of censure upon the petitioner. On 1. 8. 2006 the M. A. filed by the respondents for further extension of time, taken up for hearing and taking note of the fact that the Disciplinary authority had already passed orders dated 18. 7. 2006, extension of time up to the last date was granted. The operative portion of this order reads as under:

"applicant has objected to the passing of final orders beyond the stipulated period. He stated that period for the purpose should not be extended. We do not find any substance in the objection raised by applicant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, final orders in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant having been passed on 18. 7. 2006, extension of time up to 18. 7. 2006 is deemed to have been granted. MA. 992/2006 as such is disposed of. "

( 4 ) CHALLENGING this order, present petition is filed. The contention of the petitioner is that vide orders dated 21. 2. 2006 time was extended by three months which expired on 21. 5. 2006. The respondents, however, did not complete the inquiry within this time even when the petitioner had fully cooperated. Therefore, inquiry proceedings abated on that date. After the said date the application M. A. No. 992/2006 was filed on 31. 5. 2006. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal without dealing with the objection of the petitioner. He submitted that specific attention of the Tribunal was drawn to orders dated 24. 3. 2006 passed by this Court wherein it was categorically stated that no further extension would be granted and contrary to the said direction the tribunal granted further extension. Not only that, without giving any reason, petitioner"s contentions were brushed aside when he specifically submitted that he