The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary authority to have the competence to impose a penalty order and the necessity for a valid disagreement note as per Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

V. PARTHIBAN, J.

These Writ Petitions have been filed against the order dated 7.5.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.59 of 2009 and O.A.No.229 of 2009, allowing both the applications filed by the first respondent herein.

2. For the sake of clarity, the parties are referred to as the applicant and respondents as arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The applicant approached the Tribunal, seeking to quash the punishment order passed by the 3rd respondent reducing the pay by two stages lower in time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect with a consequential direction for confirmation of promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise on par with his juniors.

4. While the applicant was working as Inspector of Central Excise, was charge sheeted along with four other officials, viz., two Superintendents of Central Excise and two other Inspectors of Central Excise, by the second respondent vide charge memorandum dated 14.2.2002. Six articles of charges were framed against the applicant. On inquiry into the charges, it was found that the charges 3 and 4 were proved while the other charges, viz., charges 1, 2, 5 and 6 were not proved. the third respondent who was the Disciplinary Authority, forwarded the inquiry report disagreeing the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charges not proved and directed the applicant to submit his representation. The applicant also submitted his representation on 31.1.2005, but no final order was passed on the disciplinary action.

5. While matters stood thus, the applicant was dismissed from service on 12.4.2005 in pursuance of his conviction in a criminal Court and on appeal, the conviction was set aside by this Court on 25.1.2008 and ultimately, the petitioner came to be reinstated in duty vide order dated 2.12.2008. Thereafter, the disciplinary action which was kept pending, was revived and on consideration of his representation, the 3rd respondent passed impugned order of penalty with effect from 5.3.2009. The applicant without filing any statutory appeal against the said penalty, directly approached the Tribunal, assailing the order of penalty. The applicant filed a miscellaneous petition in M.A.No.59 of 2009 seeking permission of the Tribunal to waive the appellate remedy available to him as according to the applicant, the third respondents being not a competent authority to pass orders of punishment in view of involvement of two Superintendents of Central Excise and as common Inquiry was conducted into the charges, it became necessary for the applicant to directly approach the Tribunal as the question involved was for want of jurisdiction.

6. Although several grounds were raised in the application, assailing the order of the penalty by the 3rd respondent, the leaned counsel without addressing the grounds, confined his argument only to the ground raised in respect of jurisdictional issue as to whether the 3rd respondent was competent to issue the impugned penalty order.

7. The Tribunal concurred with the contention of the applicant, stating that the 3rd respondent was not competent in imposing the penalty order in the circumstances of the case and therefore, allowed the Original Application by setting aside the impugned punishment order. The consequential prayer sought for by the applicant was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant all the attendant benefits to the applicant within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

8. As against the common order passed by the Tribunal, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

9. Mr. R.S. Anandan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the first respondent herein, strenuously contended that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference on the issue of jurisdiction since the 3rd respondent or the second respondent are not competent to issue punishment order in view of the involvement of two other Officers in the rank of Su