Point of Law: statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry, which are behind the back of the Applicant, and for which he had no opportunity to cross-examine them, cannot be used in regular inquiry, as the delinquent/applicant was not associated with it and had no opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such preliminary enquiry.

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

These Writ Petitions are disposed of through BlueJeans video conferencing App.

1. Since, both these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 27.04.2012, in O.A. No. 673 of 2011, the same are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The facts, which lead to filing of these Writ Petitions, are as under:-

(i) One G. Hemasundera Rao [‘Applicant’] in O.A. was working as a Tractor Driver in Central Tobacco Research Institute [‘CTRI’], Rajahmundry, during the year 2003 to 2008. Initially, he was transferred from Rajahmundry to Veda Sundur in Tamil Nadu in February 2008 and in the month of July 2008 was transferred back to Kandukuru in Prakasam District. While he was working at Kandukuru, memos came to be issued stating that his performance in handling the tractor was not good and that he was driving the tractor slowly, taking more time than required in ploughing, thereby affecting the field operations.

(ii) While things stood thus, a complaint, dated 11.01.2008, was received by the CTRI, alleging that the Applicant was repeatedly harassing one Ms.T.Swetha, thereby causing hurt to her modesty. It has been further stated that the Applicant was stalking her; indecently proposed her and made an attempt to lure her to come to his house. Basing on these allegations, the Director of the Institute conducted preliminary investigation.

(iii) After obtaining the written statement of Ms.T.Swetha, dated 18.01.2008 and 22.01.2008, memorandums, dated 11.09.2008, 16.10.2008 and 23.09.2009, were issued to the Applicant calling for his explanation. However, the Applicant submitted a reply to the memorandums on 05.10.2009. The Applicant was placed under suspicion in the month of October 2009. A charge memo, dated 09.03.2010, came to be issued by the Disciplinary Authority, under Rule 14 containing three [03] Articles of Charge including the charge of hurting the modesty of Ms. T. Swetha.

(iv) The Applicant submitted his written statement denying the contents of the charge-memo and further stated that the written statement of the complainant Ms.T.Swetha is found to be forged.

(v) Not being satisfied with the explanation given, the Director, CTRI, appointed one Dr. Smt. Suman Kalyanai, as an Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry in respect of the Charges. After giving due opportunity to the Applicant, the inquiry was conducted as per Rules and all the three [03] Charges were held proved, vide Report, dated 31.07.2010. Later on, the Applicant submitted a detailed representation, dated 21.08.2010, to the Director, CTRI, in respect of the aforesaid report, wherein, he sought for imposing lesser penalty. Taking into consideration the finding of the Inquiry Officer and after considering the representation, the authorities imposed penalty of removal from service.

(vi) Challenging the same, the Applicant filed an Appeal, dated 28.09.2010, before the Appellate Authority, who rejected the same vide Order, dated 19.04.2011, confirming the penalty of removal from service.

(vii) Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant preferred O.A. No. 673 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide its Order, dated 27.04.2012, the Tribunal while upholding the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority, however, remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for awarding lesser punishment. The Tribunal further held that the period between the date of removal and reinstatement, after imposing lesser punishment, shall be treated as dies-non. Challenging the same, the Department filed W.P. No.3930 of 2013; while the Applicant filed W.P. No.8203 of 2013.

3. Heard Smt. C. Vani Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P. No. 3930 of 2013 and Sri.Tuhin Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, in W.P.No.8203 of 2013.

4. Smt. C. Vani Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would contend that, the Order of the Tribunal is illegal, arb