Cross-objections cannot replace an independent appeal when seeking to quash a favourable order in departmental proceedings.

Cross-objections cannot be used to seek quashing of an order that has already granted relief, where no independent appeal has been filed. The Tribunal treated such a challenge as an impermissible attempt to overturn the reasoning of the impugned order through a cross-objection in a departmental appeal. It also found no sufficient basis to disturb the findings recorded in favour of the respondents, as the departmental grounds did not justify interference with the earlier determination. The departmental appeal was therefore accepted and the cross-objections were rejected, leaving the earlier order intact for the respondents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents could seek quashing of the impugned order through cross-objections in a departmental appeal; (ii) whether the respondents made out any case to disturb the findings recorded in their favour in the impugned order.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents could seek quashing of the impugned order through cross-objections in a departmental appeal.

Analysis: Cross-objections were directed against an order that had already dropped the proposed penalty against the respondents. The challenge raised by the respondents was, in substance, an attempt to assail the reasoning and seek setting aside of the very order that had exonerated them. Since the respondents had not filed an independent appeal against that order, they could not use cross-objections in the departmental appeal as a vehicle to obtain such relief.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were not maintainable to the extent they sought quashing of the impugned order.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents made out any case to disturb the findings recorded in their favour in the impugned order.

Analysis: The respondents did not establish that the departmental grounds of appeal were legally untenable in a manner that would justify interference with the earlier final order. The Tribunal therefore found no basis to alter its earlier determination as regards the respondents.

Conclusion: No case was made out by the respondents to disturb the earlier findings, and the departmental appeal succeeded while the cross-objections failed.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge was accepted and the respondents' cross-objections were rejected, leaving the earlier order intact insofar as the respondents were concerned.

---