D. K. SRIVASTAVA Vs. HOUSING AND URBAN DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present Petition, the Petitioner assails the order dtd. 11/10/2018 [hereinafter referred to as ,,Impugned Order] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2659/2014, [hereinafter referred to as ,,Tribunal] whereby the challenge to the memorandum of charge dtd. 12/10/2010, the dismissal Order dtd. 29/9/2011, and the appellate order dtd. 6/2/2014, came to be rejected.

(2.) The controversy in the present Petition is whether the disciplinary proceedings, culminating in the Petitioners dismissal from service on the allegation that he had lodged a false complaint/FIR imputing demand of illegal gratification to senior officers of HUDCO, were sustainable in law; whether the ex parte inquiry stood vitiated for want of fair opportunity; and whether the Tribunal was justified in declining interference.

(3.) The Petitioner was appointed as a Law Officer in HUDCO on 17/1/1990. In the late 1990s, on the basis of two complaints made by his wife, criminal proceedings came to be registered against him, leading to his arrest and consequential suspension from service, which remained in force from 8/9/1997 to 17/2/2009. He was thereafter reinstated and posted to the HUDCO Jaipur Regional Office, where he joined with effect from 1/4/2009. Upon rejoining service, disputes arose regarding the treatment of the suspension period and the release of arrears of pay and increments relatable thereto