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. 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/representation against down gradation in the ACR but is limited to the observations made against the Central Vigilance Commission in Paras 3 & 4 of the impugned order which are reproduced below at the cost of repetition but to ensure clarity: 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. 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. The pleadings reveal that respondent No.1 had made certain complaints involving the allegations of moral turpitude against the then Director, Raja Ramanna Centre for Advance Tehnology, Indore who was made respondent No.3 as party by name by alleging that respondent No.3 exerted pressure on the respondent No.1 to unduly favour a particular private party but since the respondent No.1 did not succumb to the pressure, ACRs of the respondent No.1 were spoilt. Record further reveals that with these allegations, the respondent No.1 filed the original application seeking up-gradation of his ACRs and consequential promotion. 5.1 During the course of proceedings in O.A. No.968/2012, the Tribunal directed for impleadment of Central Vigilance Commission as party. The said direction was acceded to and Central Vigilance Commission was made party. The intention behind impleadment of Central Vigilance Commission as party was so to ascertain the procedure followed by Central Vigilance Commission while considering the complaint of the respondent. 5.2 The Tribunal decided the matter finally by the impugned order by making certain observations which were adverse to the interest of Central Vigilance Commission. The Tribunal was impelled to make these observations on the basis of letter dated 14.12.2016 of Central Vigilance Commission which is extracted in the impugned order. 5.3 Letter dated 14.12.2016 instructed the counsel for Central Vigilance Commission to ensure deletion of name of Central Vigilance Commission from the array of the parties in O.A. No.968/2012 owing to the immunity enjoyed by Central Vigilance Commission as per the provision of section 15 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act (“CVC Act” for brevity). 5.4 The Tribunal interpreting the provisions of section 15 of CVC Act rightly held that said provision does not extend immunity from judicial review to the CVC but is a merely protective umbrella for the functionaries of CVC against prosecution for any act done by them or intended to be done by them in good faith. The Tribunal also rightly held that immunity from prosecution is available to very few Constitutional functionaries during the tenure of their office. The Tribunal also rightly held that immunity from prosecution is available to very few Constitutional functionaries during the tenure of their office. 5.5 The Tribunal in its anxiety to castigate the Central Vigilance Commission for wrongly seeking immunity u/S.15 of CVC Act made the impugned observations. 5.6 The findings of the Tribunal while interpreting section 15 of CVC Act cannot be found fault with. 5.7 However, while dealing with a service matter in original application filed under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal is expected to restrict it’s adjudicatory inquiry to the service dispute raised which in this case was regarding downgradation of ACRs and non-promotion and while doing so, the Tribunal can very well adopt procedure permissible u/S 22 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. During the course of the proceedings in the pending Original Application, the Tribunal ought to be careful not to overstep its jurisdiction by recording a finding or an observation which has no relationship with the adjudicatory process required for deciding the service dispute. The power vested in the Tribunal of issuing summons, notices, making inquiry, seeking filing of reply, rejoinder etc. or relevant documents, filing of affidavits should all be exercised with the sole object to adjudicate the service dispute raised. 6. The Tribunal ought not to go astray by observing or criticizing the functioning of a statutory body as was done in this case, especially when the role of the Central Vigilance Commission was not required to be looked into for adjudicating the service dispute raised. The Tribunal ultimately did not go into the merits of the complaint made by the respondent No.1 and left it to the competent authority to decide the representation/appeal and, therefore, the need to castigate the Central Vigilance Commission ought to have been avoided. 7. In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that while making observation against Central Vigilance Commission in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it thereby impelling this Court to step in and set things right by invoking its writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction. 8. Consequently, this petition stands allowed in the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 1.5.2017 passed in O.A. No.968/2012 so far as it pertains to the directions contained in Paras 4 & 5 is upheld. 8. Consequently, this petition stands allowed in the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 1.5.2017 passed in O.A. No.968/2012 so far as it pertains to the directions contained in Paras 4 & 5 is upheld. (ii) Observations made in the last sentence of Paragraph 3 against the Central Vigilance Commission and its functionaries are set aside. (iii) Petitioner and its functionaries are now directed to decide the appeal/representation made by the respondent No.1 against the down gradation of ACRs of different years as enumerated above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to cost.