V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the communication dated June 03, 2016 from Senior Administrative Officer on behalf of Director General, Border Road Organization to the Chief Engineer (HQ), Brahamank whereby, the Chief Engineer was directed to forward charge sheets along with list of documents with regard to certain officers including the petitioner herein. It may be noted here, the said communication was not addressed to the petitioner.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was promoted as Superintending Engineer in Border Road Organization-respondent No.3 in December, 2005. Between November 2007 and July 2010, he was posted as Commander, 44 Border Roads Task Force at Along in Arunachal Pradesh; at project Brahamank in East Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh in the rank of Superintending Engineer and Director, Works & Budget, where he continues as on date.

3. It is his case that on February 26, 2015, he received a summon for attending Court of Inquiry, which was convened to enquire into alleged deficiency of Hume Pipes in the year 2008-2009. It is also his case that the summon was later amended to report for Court of Inquiry in July, 2015. According to him, he attended the Court of Inquiry on July 28, 2015, where he requested, for supply of relevant documents under Rule 184(2) of the Army Rules, 1954, the request was not acceded to by the respondents. In August, 2015, the Court of Inquiry submitted its report to the respondent No.3, in which the petitioner was held to be blameworthy for the alleged loss of Hume pipes. It is his case that on September 28, 2015, the petitioner submitted a representation highlighting anomalies in the conduct of Court of Inquiry. Instead of replying to the representation, summon was issued to attend another Court of Inquiry on the same subject. On January 15, 2016, he submitted another representation to set aside the reconvening order of COI and seeking a reply to his representation dated September 28, 2015. Pursuant thereto, on January 29, 2016, the respondents replied to the petitioner to attend the Court of Inquiry, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. It is his case, that he attended the Court of Inquiry under protest. It is also his case that Rule 180 of the Army Rules was invoked against the petitioner. His further request for supply of documents was again refused. The Additional Court of Inquiry submitted its report in February 2016 to the respondent No.3.

4. On February 15, 2016, the petitioner received a letter dated January 22, 2016 informing him that the representation dated September 28, 2015 has been disposed of as a pseudonymous complaint. On February 16, 2016, March 21, 2016, the petitioner made representations for setting aside of the COI as well as for the supply of documents under Rule 184(2) of the Army Rules, which request was turned down by the respondents as they refused to supply the relevant documents. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents issued an order holding the petitioner blameworthy for various lapses based on the Court of Inquiry, which was followed by the impugned communication dated June 03, 2016.

5. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would make two submissions. The first being that the respondents, having subjected the petitioner to Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 during the Court of Inquiry could not have denied the petitioner the relevant documents and the right of cross examination in violation of the statutory Rules, principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that regard. She would also state, that the proposed charge sheet sought to be issued by the respondents, would be for deficiencies pertaining to the year 2008-2009 and the same cannot be issued after an inordinate delay of about seven years. In support of her contention, she would rely upon the following judgments:-

(i) 2014 (3) SLR 338 Union of Ind