JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Adhitya Harsha Vardhan for M/s. Pillix Law Firm representing the petitioner and Ms. K. Durga Lavanya, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Venkata Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the departmental enquiry in pursuance of the Memorandum of Charges Dated 15-06-2010 before conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioner before Hon’ble Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.43 of 2010 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 20 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner till the conclusion of the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2010 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation namely the Cotton Corporation of India Limited, Government of India undertaking (in short “the Corporation”) as Junior Cotton Purchase Officer on 03.12.1979 and worked in various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011.

4. The Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”), Visakhapatnam had registered cases against the petitioner and his family members in FIR R.C.No.10(A)/2006-CBI, VSP for the alleged possession of disproportionate assets and FIR R.C.No.11(A)/2006 CBI, VSP for Criminal Conspiracy, cheating and abuse of the official position, both dated 17.06.2006. During investigation the petitioner is said to have appeared, in which his statement was recorded and the CBI filed charge sheet before the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”), 1860, upon which the Court had taken cognizance and allotted CC.No.43 of 2010, dated 17.09.2010.

5. The Corporation respondent No.1 initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the Cotton Corporation of India Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (in short, “the Rules 1975”) and appointed the respondent No.2, the Branch Manager and disciplinary authority, as the Enquiry Officer vide proceedings No.CCI/VIG/WGL/2358-2010 dated 12.04.2010. The disciplinary authority issued a Memorandum of Charges dated 15.06.2010 to the petitioner, with a direction to submit a written statement of his defence in answer to the charges, to which the petitioner submitted reply on 18.07.2010 informing that the petitioner’s medical condition was not good and sought time till he became medically fit. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 22.11.2010 with immediate effect under Rule 20 (i) (a) & 20 (i) (b) of the Rules, 1975. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.01.2011 appointed the respondent No.3 the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The Presenting Officer was also appointed.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the venue of the departmental enquiry was changed from one place to another from time to time of which, the petitioner was not aware. However, it is admitted that Enquiry Officer sent summons through Special Messenger which was received by the petitioner’s son on 28.04.2011 and in response the petitioner addressed a letter dated 01.05.2011 to the Enquiry Officer to keep the enquiry in abeyance till disposal of the criminal case