ORDER

1. This petition filed u/Art. 226 read with Art. 227 of the Constitution assails the final order of the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal rendered in O.A. No.968/2012 on 1.5.2017 by which the said original application was disposed of with following directions and observations:

3. The provision that no suit or proceedings may lie against the Commission for action taken by him in good faith, is a protection for his officers but our summons to the CVC to look into the matter is in furtherance of his duty for protecting the integrity of the Governance of the country for which alone the CVC is constituted. Either the concerned official has not understood the mandate of the CVC or concerned official has not understood the requirement behind our summons. In any way it seems that they have failed the nation.

4. However, after hearing the matter we find that in the matter of 7 ACRs the applicant had not been able to file an appeal and his connection is that there is no point of filing an appeal before the concerned officials against whom he had made such serious allegations is correct. But at the same time after Dev Dutt’s case it is in the fitness of the things that such grievances of applicant must be set at right. Therefore, there will be an order to the applicant directing him to file a cumulative appeal against the 7 ACRs as aforesaid to the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy and there is be a specific mandate for the Secretary to give an opportunity for being heard to the applicant in person or through counsel and pass an appropriate order on such appeal filed by him irrespective of the fact that it is has not been routed through proper channel Needless to say an opportunity of being heard will also to be given to the concerned officials as well so that their voice also may be heard herein, if the secretary finds that there is some prima facie ground in the allegations raised by the applicant then he shall make an appropriate order that the matter shall be further be investigated so that nation may not lose. On the other hand if he finds that these allegations are made without responsibility and a sense of accountability then appropriate action will be taken against the applicant as well. The hearing shall be done within a period of two months next, after the applicant files an appeal and the next consequences must follow within two months after that so that there will be a conclusion within four months.

5. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed off as above No costs.

2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard for final disposal.

3. The original application was filed by respondent No.1 aggrieved by non-consideration of his promotion to the post of Scientific Officer/H in the Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology Indore and against downgradation of his ACRs for the period from 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2003, 1.8.2003 to 31.7.2004, 1.8.2004 to 31.7.2005, 1.8.2005 to 31.7.2006, 1.8.2006 to 31.7.2007, 1.8.2007 to 31.7.2008, 1.4.2008 to 31.7.2008 and 1.8.2008 to 30.6.2009. With the aforesaid grievance, the prayer made by the respondent No.1 in his original application No. 968/2012 is thus:

“8.1 It be held that the un-communicated down graded ACRs of the applicant are void ab initio and they be quashed.

8.2 Alternatively it be held that the un-communicated down graded ACRs of the applicant are to be kept in abeyance and should not be considered for applicant’s promotion to the post of Scientific Officer/H.

8.3 The respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion on the post of Scientific Officer/H retrospectively from 2009 and pay him arrears of salary along with interest at current market rate.

8.4 Any other relief as deemed proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal and costs of this O.A. be awarded.”

4. The grievance of petitioner – Central Vigilance Commission before this Court is not in regard to the direction given by the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal/representa