The petitioner joined as Junior Engineer E1-Grade, in the service of the Singareni Collieries, in the year 1975. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer E2-grade, and thereafter, as Superintending Engineer.

2. In the year 1998, the petitioner was in-charge of Arial Rope Way and Sand Gathering Station, in the Kothagudem area of the company. One of the employees working under him was a Tyandal in the category of Mazdoor, by name Mallaiah. He intended to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement in the year 1996, two years before he attained the age of superannuation. However, since it was found that his son cannot be extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, due to his under age, the employee has withdrawn the proposal.

3. On 29.4.1998, the wife of Mallaiah, by name B.Yelamma, submitted an application to the petitioner, stating that her husband died due to ill-health, on 27.2.1998, while in service, and that she may be extended the terminal benefits. A death certificate issued by the Commissioner of Municipality was also enclosed. The application was forwarded by the petitioner, to the concerned authorities, and ultimately, the General Manager of the unit sanctioned the Monthly Monetary Compensation (MMC) to the said lady, with effect from 1.4.1998.

4. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 22.5.2004, requiring him to explain as to why action shall not be taken against him, on the ground that he did not exhibit proper care and caution, while processing the application submitted by Smt.B.Yellamma. It was also alleged that on account of instructions issued by him to a clerk, the application was examined and the MMC was extended. It was mentioned that the subsequent enquiries revealed that Mallaiah was very much alive. This was followed by a charge sheet, dated 19.10.2004, alleging that the petitioner is guilty of the lapses under Rules 5.1, 5.5 and 4.1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1989 (for short "the Rules").

5. Petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges leveled against him. He raised a preliminary objection for the proceedings initiated against him, on the ground that they are barred by Rule 34 (5), inasmuch as they were instituted, four years after the limitation, prescribed thereunder. He further stated that before directing the clerk to process the application, he verified the matter with the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Kothagudem, and only on being informed that the certificate is genuine, he forwarded the same. It was also his case that according to the prescribed procedure, a committee, comprising of about five senior officers of the company, has to process the claim for MMC and he has absolutely no role to play in sanction of the benefit.

6. The General Manager (E&M) was appointed as Enquiry Officer, and he conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter. He submitted a report dated 26.7.2006, holding that the charge referable to Rule 5.1 is not proved and that the petitioner had committed the lapses, referable to rule 5.5 and 4.1. Even while the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2006. He was permitted to retire, without prejudice to the right of the company to continue the disciplinary proceedings. The Chairman & Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, the respondent herein, issued a show-cause notice dated 15.9.2006, to the petitioner. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his explanation on 3.10.2006. On a consideration of the same, the respondent imposed the punishment of removal of petitioner from service of the company and directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,66,667/-, paid to Smt. Yellamma under MMC, from out of the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

7. The petitioner contends that his specific plea that the proceedings are barred under Rule 34.5 was not at all taken into consideration, either by the enquiry officer, or by the re