The petitioner joined the service as an Engineer in the establishment of the respondent – M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and later promoted as Deputy Manager (Shops), Foundry and Forge Division. He was granted 1½ years of study leave with pay by the management to complete his Ph.D. Course in Indian Institute of Science. He was also paid salary during the course of his studies. On 16.12.2003, a charge sheet was issued to him and he was kept under suspension. The charge sheet related to his misconduct. In the charge sheet dated 23.11.2004, the charges pertain to appointment of one Shri V. Senthil Kumar and Shri Janaki Rami Reddy as Executive Trainee (Technical) in HAL, Helicopter Division, Bangalore. The charge sheet further states that the list of documents and the list of witnesses which the Articles of Charges indicated in Annexure-I are proposed to be proved as indicated in Annexures-II and III. The allegations as raised in the charge sheet would constitute misconduct and violation of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984, under which Rules 4 and 5 have been referred. The charge sheet accompanied with Annexure-I, imputation of misconduct is with regard to appointment of V.Senthil Kumar and Janaki Rami Reddy; the petitioner in connivance with M Masilamani, the then Chief Manager (P&A), Helicopter Division, collected the Offers of Appointment letters of above said V.Senthil Kumar and Janaki Rami Reddy, for the post of Executive Trainee and they demanded bribe from these two candidates. Said V.Senthil Kumar made a complaint to the C.B.I. and on receipt of his complaint, the petitioner was caught red-handed on 13.12.2003 by the C.B.I. Anti Corruption Bureau officials while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/. It is the imputation of his misconduct that one M.Masilamani, who handed over the Offers of Appointment letters of the two selected candidates to Raghunathan and Raghunathan in turn demanded bribe from the complainant. The criminal case of V.Senthil Kumar was registered in No.RC.29(A)/2003-BLR; after verifying the genuineness of the complaint, it was decided to trap Raghunathan and accordingly, trap was laid and he was caught red-handed. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 13.8.2004 for the offences under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections, 7, 8, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. With regard to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a reply on 30th December 2004. He had also approached this Court in W.P.No.21738/2005 (S-DIS) and made a prayer to quash the enquiry proceedings dated 30.4.2005. The said petition came to be disposed of on 7.10.2005, in which a direction was issued to the Enquiry officer to reexamine the request made by the petitioner for availing the services of an Advocate to defend him in the enquiry. The respondent – Company also issued one more charge sheet dated 21st June 2006, which is similar to the charge sheet dated 23.11.2004 as per Annexure-C. List of documents and list of witnesses as per Annexures-II and III to the charge sheet in which the respondent proposed to examine about five witnesses and documents sought to be used in the enquiry of about nine documents. He also preferred Writ Petition No.7959/2006 to avail the services of the Advocate, which was dismissed on 30th June 2009 with an observation that the aggrieved party should wait till the disciplinary proceedings are completed and challenge the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings before the appropriate forum. He has also approached this Court in W.P.No.9239/2006 praying to quash the charge sheet issued against him under proceedings dated 21.6.2006. The said petition was dismissed. He instituted one more Writ Petition No.2328/2007. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner was concluded with an observation that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved and on the basis of the same, he was issued show cause notice. He was issued