ORDER

An order of compulsory retirement in a departmental proceeding under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short, the CCS Rules ) is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Against the delinquent-respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CCS Rules, a set of charges having been levelled, he was called upon to answer those charges in a regular inquiry. Before the Enquiring Officer, the delinquent prayed for production of certain documents and in fact, an order was passed by the Enquiring Officer, directing the departmental authorities to give copies of those documents to the delinquent. But, notwithstanding the same, the allegation of the delinquent is that some of those documents had not been produced. Ultimately, on the basis of the materials produced, the Enquiring Officer came to the conclusion that the charges against the delinquent have been proved by the departmental authorities. On the basis of the said report of the Enquiring Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement after coming to the conclusion that the charges against the delinquent must be said to have been established beyond doubt. The delinquent then preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the same having been dismissed, the approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (the Tribunal). The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that there has been no invalidity in the inquiry proceeding nor can it be said that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order of punishment cannot be interfered with. The Tribunal having dismissed the application filed by the delinquent, he is in appeal before this Court.

2. Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, seriously contended before us that notwithstanding the order of the Enquiring Officer directing production of the documents, non-production of some of those documents itself tantamounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to defend his case and the Tribunal, therefore, was in error in not accepting the said contention raised before it. The learned counsel further urged that the Architect who was the key defence witness in the case, though had been summoned but did not depose on being pressurised by the Enquiring Officer and that itself would vitiate the ultimate conclusion of the Enquiring Officer. The learned counsel further contended that the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiring Officer must be held to be conclusions without any evidence and as such those conclusions could not have formed a basis of the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority. He lastly submitted that bias writ large on the order of the Enquiring Officer itself and though this contention had been raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the relevant parts of the orders of the Enquiring Officer and brushed aside the said contention of the delinquent.

3. We have considered each of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any substance in any one of them. It is, no doubt, true that the delinquent had made an application for production of certain documents and the Enquiring Officer did pass an order for production of those documents. It also transpires that some of those documents were produced and yet some of them had not been produced. When a grievance was made on this score before the Enquiring Officer by filing a representation on 3rd of August, 1989, the said Enquiring Officer considered the said grievance and came to the conclusion that the very fact that though the inquiry continued from 3.7.1989 to 6.7.1989 and the delinquent had been cross-examining the departmental witnesses, yet no grievance had been made on the score of non-production of any of those vital documents which, according to the delinqu