Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-The appellants impugn the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 9.8.94 in O.A. No. 27/94.

2. Before proceeding to consider the issues, we want to observe the following:

This Court while granting special leave on 28.2.95 expedited the hearing of the appeal and directed the counsel to complete the paper books within ten weeks. In spite of passing of nearly three years after the leave was granted, no steps have been taken to complete the paper books and we have to go only the order of the Tribunal. In the SLP paper book, only a copy of the judgment of the Tribunal, apart from the Special Leave Petition and the Counter Affidavit filed by the appellants before the Tribunal, is available and no other documents were included. Hence, leave was granted by this Court to complete the paper book. Even then the appellants did not care to avail the oppor­tunity.

Now on merits.

3. The respondent in this appeal was working as an Income Tax Officer, Group ‘B’, during the relevant period. He was proceeded departmentally by filing a charge-sheet dated 7.5.87 for alleged irregularities in the income-tax assessment. For reasons with which we are not con­cerned, that was not pursued after certain stage. Later on, the re­spondent was served with another charge-sheet dated 25.3.88. The article of charge reads as follows :-

“Shri S.B. Ramesh, Income Tax Officer, Group-B, Andhra Pradesh (now under suspension) has contracted a second marriage with Smt. K.R. Aruna while his first wife, Smt. Anusuya is alive and the first mar­riage has not been dissolved. By this act, Shri S.B. Ramesh has vio­lated Rule 21(3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In any case, Shri S.B. Ramesh has been living with Smt. K.R. Aruna and has children by her. Thereby Shri S.B. Ramesh has exhibited a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and has accordingly violated rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.”

4. As the respondent denied the charge, an Enquiry was conducted in which the respondent did not participate. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was to the effect that the first part of the charge was not proved and that the second part of the charge, namely, that the re­spondent, by living with Smt. K.R. Aruna and having children by her, exhibited a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was established. This Report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who by his order dated 23.4.92 imposed on him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by that, the respondent preferred an appeal on 4.6.92 which was kept pending without disposal for an unduly long time which obliged the respondent to file an application before the Tribunal challenging the punishment of compulsory retire­ment.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent challenged the order of compul­sory retirement by contending that the Enquiry has not been held inconformity with the principles of natural justice, that the findings of the Enquiry Authority, which were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, were all absolutely perverse and based on no evidence and that sub-rule (18) of rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was not complied with. It also appears that the respondent raised a preliminary point before the Tribunal contending that his conduct, which has no relation to the discharge of official duties, cannot form a basis for depart­mental proceedings to charge him under the rule 3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules. The preliminary point was, however, rejected by the Tribunal as without merit in the light of a judgment of this Court in Govinda Menon v. Union of India1 .

6. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal were to the effect that all reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent officer and all rules have been followed and com­plied with. According to the learned counsel for the Department, the findings rendered b