VENUGOPAL, S/O SRI KESHAVA MURTHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA, BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND I.T. DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ROOM NO. 915, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOK ROAD, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 105/2007 and to direct the respondents to release full pension from the date of retirement.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Engineering Supervisor in P & T Department during the year 1967. He discharged his duties sincerely and honestly in the Department and he got promotions as Sub -Divisional Officer in the year 1981 and subsequently as Divisional Officer in the year 1981 and as Divisional Engineer during 1995 at Mysore. He also worked at Bidar as Telecom District Engineer from 20.6.1997 to 28.4.1998 and subsequently transferred to Mysore and retired in the month of June 2005. During the month of October 1999 one Sri. R. Subramanian, Chief Accounts Officer, Bangalore inspected the Office at Bidar Telecom, Bidar for the period from 05.10.1999 to 28.10.1999. He detected several illegalities in the purchase of various telecom materials and reported the matter to the General Manager (Finance), In the month of January 2000 again the Chief Accounts Officer inspected the Office of Bidar Telecom after taking permission from the General Manager (Finance) and observed several irregularities while purchasing telecom materials and submitted his Audit Report. Based on the complaint, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed charge sheet against 9 officers on 28.09.2003 including the petitioner before the Principal District Judge, Dharwad in Special C.C. No. 1/2004 and the said criminal proceedings are pending.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the Disciplinary Authority appointed Sri. Yogesh, the Commissioner for Enquiry's as an Enquiry Authority under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1965 by an order dated 21.04.2004. On 12.05.2004 the Enquiry Officer held preliminary hearing at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Due to delay in intimation to the petitioner about the preliminary hearing, the petitioner could not appear before the Enquiry Officer as the copies of documents on which the Charges alleged are being relied on by the Disciplinary Authority were not supplied to him. Therefore, the petitioner sent a Representation dated 24.06.2004 to the Disciplinary Authority praying for permission to appoint a legal practitioner (Advocate) to defend him in the Enquiry proceedings. But the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25.08.2004 rejected the request of the petitioner to appoint legal practitioner as defence assistant and fixed the enquiry from 11.01.2005 to 13.01.2005.