The court emphasized the importance of evidence and fair treatment in disciplinary proceedings, while also highlighting the significance of seniority in promotion decisions.

Dipak Misra, C.J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (for short 'the Board') has assailed the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the tribunal') in TA No. 523/2009.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the Respondent, a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), had approached the tribunal challenging the order dated 1.7.2008 whereby in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under Section 8-A of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 (for short 'the 1959 Regulations'), a minor penalty of censure was inflicted on him. That apart, the order dated 10.4.2008, whereby the charge of Deputy Director from the applicant was taken over and Ors. were promoted, was also challenged. After the MCD, by virtue of a notification issued under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, came within the ambit and sweep of the said Act, the matter stood transferred to the tribunal for adjudication.

3. The Respondent was employed with the then existing Slum & J.J. Department of MCD. By order dated 21.12.2004, he was asked to look after the current duty charge of Deputy Director. While he was holding the said post, a charge sheet was issued on 21.12.2006 in respect of certain misconduct. In pursuance of the charge sheet, an enquiry was conducted and after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment of censure was imposed by order dated 1.7.2008. Before the punishment came to be inflicted, the current duty charge assigned to the Respondent for the post of Deputy Director was taken over from him for administrative reasons. The Respondent filed the writ petition for quashment of the charge sheet dated 21.12.2006 and further quashment of the order by which the current duty charge of the Respondent had been taken away. A claim was also made for promotion on adhoc basis as Deputy Director.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the Petitioner herein contending, inter alia, that the Respondent was on the current duty charge and, hence, No. right accrued in his favor. Though the current duty charge was withdrawn, yet it had nothing to do with the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings which was done for administrative reasons. It was also asserted that five incumbents were promoted to the post of Deputy Director on adhoc basis in the year 2008 and none of them were junior to the Respondent.

5. The tribunal referred to the decision in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., 2009 (1) SCALE 285 and came to hold that the misconduct had not been proved and he had been made a scapegoat and, therefore, the penalty could not be sustained. After so holding, the tribunal directed as follows:

6. The applicant has been looking after the current duty charge of the post of Deputy Director since 2004 whereas his juniors, who happened to perform the current duty charge, have been promoted as Deputy Director on ad-hoc basis since 2005, in this view of the matter taking off the said charge from the applicant only, on the basis of penalty of censure, which has now been declared illegal as a consequence thereof the applicant till his retirement has to be deemed to be on current duty charge and deserves consideration for ad hoc promotion as has been done in cases of his junior colleagues from 2005 or which a review DPC or the methodology as adopted by the Respondents shall be brought in force so that the applicant be placed at part with his junior colleagues with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order....

6. It is worth noting, an application was made for correction of the said paragraph on the ground that a typographical error had crept in. The tribunal, by order dated 25.11.2010, passed the following order:

In the interest of justice, as some typographical e