SHRI DANIEL SIMAO BARETTO Vs. GOA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the penalty of compulsory retirement, imposed by the respondent on the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus:

(3.) The petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 11.05.2009 by the Vice Chancellor, who is the Disciplinary Authority, by which, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Rules of 1965, for short). The petitioner was charged under three distinct heads of misconduct, namely:-