The main legal point established in the judgment is that the CCS (CCA) Rules could not be applied to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner during his statutory tenure as a Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as the DRT Act, 1993, provided for a separate inquiry by a High Court Judge for misbehavior or misconduct of the Presiding Officer.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1864/2008 and the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No. 121/2010. By the impugned orders dated 22.2.2010 and 6.8.2010, O.A. No. 1864/2008 and Review Application No. 121/2010, respectively, filed by the petitioner herein stand dismissed.

2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner was as an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court with almost 19 years of standing. He was appointed as a Deputy Government Advocate under the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India after being selected by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on 03.06.1991.

3. During his tenure, the petitioner being eligible, was offered for appointment as a Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as DRT), a judicial body established under the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993, which was established for adjudication of matters relating to recovery of debts of banks and other public financial institutions. The selection for the Presiding Officer was held by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner was selected and joined as Presiding Officer, DRT at Ahmedabad on 09.04.1999. His appointment was duly notified on 12.04.1999. His appointment was for a period of five years or till he attained the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner was appointed as a Presiding Officer for five years on deputation to enable him to return to his parent Department after completing his tenure of five years. The petitioner completed his tenure and joined back on 15.04.2004. The Removal and Conditions of Service of Presiding Officer in DRT is governed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993.

4. Further as per the writ petition during the tenure of the petitioner as Presiding Officer, a staff car driver, namely, Shri S.B. Nair, had been attached with the petitioner. The said staff car driver always indulged in insubordination. He was also in the habit of coming late and persistently false complaints against the Registrar DRT, the petitioner and other officers of the DRT. Thus, the petitioner being the competent disciplinary authority was constrained to suspend him vide order dated 8.3.2002 and draft charges were sent to the nodal ministry i.e. Ministry of Finance. Since S.B. Nair was making false complaints against the petitioner, the petitioner, in compliance of the principles of natural justice, vide his letter dated 2.5.2002 made a request for appointment of an ad hoc disciplinary authority. On the basis of the said request of the petitioner, the competent authority appointed the Presiding Officer of DRT II, Mumbai, as the ad hoc disciplinary authority, who conducted the enquiry and found the said staff car driver guilty of misconduct and on such findings the ad hoc disciplinary authority dismissed the S.B. Nair, staff car driver, from service.

5. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry and while he was under suspension, S.B. Nair made a complaint against the petitioner vide letter dated 20.4.2002, which the petitioner claims was back dated. A copy of the said complaint was also marked to the Prime Minister of India and the Chairman, DRAT. The Chairman, DRAT, sought a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5.6.2002. Upon examination of the said reply the Chairman, DRAT, found the complaint of S.B. Nair to be frivolous and with malicious intentions and did not take any action on that complaint. Nearly two years thereafter, the petitioner completed his statutory tenure as a Presiding Officer, DRT, on 8.4.2004 and returned to his original department. The petitioner was due to superannuate on 31.7.2007. Just about a week prior to his superannuation, the respondent/UOI