A BARNABAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 18. 9. 2001 made in O. A. No. 631 of 2000 and the order of the second respondent, viz. , the Director General, Sports Authority of India, New Delhi, dated 10. 3. 1999 as well as the order of the first respondent, viz. , the Vice chairman, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Sports Authority of India, New delhi, dated 19. 5. 2000, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash those orders and direct respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-According to him, he was appointed as Assistant Director in the Sports authority of India and posted at New Delhi on 30. 3. 1990. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bangalore on 24. 4. 1990 and from Bangalore to Salem on 28. 8. 1991, then re-transferred to Bangalore on 16. 1. 1996 and thereafter to imphal on 14. 5. 1997. While at Imphal, the second respondent issued a charge memo on 16. 5. 1997 under Rule 14 of the C. C. S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 and called for the explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 05. 11. 1997. An enquiry officer was appointed to go into the four charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer fixed the date for regular enquiry on 14. 3. 1998. Since the petitioner was not well, he did not attend the enquiry on 14. 3. 1998. The enquiry officer held the enquiry in his absence and submitted his report holding that Charge Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were proved. On his request, the disciplinary authority remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer by order, dated 25. 8. 1998. In the said order, direction was also issued to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the presenting officer and he may also be allowed to produce his defence witnesses. In spite of the said order, the enquiry officer simply adopted and endorsed his earlier report without examining witnesses and without calling upon the petitioner to enter his defence. When he appeared for the de novo enquiry, he prayed for an adjournment. The enquiry officer denied his request and submitted his supplementary report on 06. 10. 1998 simply adopting the earlier report. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal on 05. 4. 1 999 before the first respondent. Ultimately, by order, dated 19. 5. 200 0, the appellate authority dismissed his appeal confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Central administrative Tribunal by filing an application in O. A. No. 631 of 2000. The tribunal, by the impugned order, confirmed the orders passed by the original and appellate authority and dismissed his Original Application. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.