VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No. 616/2017, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner. In the said Original Application, the petitioner had sought to assail the memo dated 20.06.2011 issued to him initiating disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He also assailed the subsequent proceedings undertaken in pursuance of the said memo dated 20.06.2011, including the disagreement note issued to him vide memo dated 19.10.2016 by the Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer exonerating him of the charge in question. In substance, the charge against the petitioner was that he had misused his official position in issuing a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) in respect of a plot situated in Meera Bhyandar Municipal Corporation with the ulterior motive of obtaining illegal gratification. He was trapped by the CBI and caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.2 crores from the complainant. When the Original Application was filed, the matter was still pending consideration before the Disciplinary Authority on the aspect of imposition of penalty. The petitioner also sought release of consequential benefits in the form of promotion, arrears of pay as well as pensionary benefits with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The petitioner joined the Indian Postal Service Group ‘A’ on 13.11.1978. On 30.10.2010, the CBI filed a charge-sheet in Special Case No. 116/2010 before the Special Court CBI, Greater Mumbai against the petitioner and two other private persons under Section 120C IPC read with Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the allegation that the petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2 crores on 24.02.2010 for issuing a NOC in respect of Plot No. 177 in Meera Bhyandar Municipal Corporation reserved for Posts & Telegraph under the Meera Bhyandar Development Control Regulations. The petitioner challenged the action of the CBI by claiming that the same was in violation of Section 6(A) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and the matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the trial in the said case has not progressed. The petitioner was, however, placed under deemed suspension with effect from 25.02.2010 on account of his being in police custody for more than 48 hours. His suspension was revoked on 03.11.2011. In the meantime, on 20.06.2011, the impugned memo was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules initiating departmental proceedings against him for alleged irregularities committed in issuance of NOC in respect of the aforesaid plot with ulterior motive of accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner was, thereafter, again placed under suspension on 08.11.2011 and he continued to remain suspended till the date he attained the age of superannuation.

3. The inquiry proceedings were undertaken by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer found the charge against the petitioner not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however, tentatively disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer vide disagreement note dated 19.10.2016. The petitioner demanded the documents referred to in the disagreement note. The submission of the petitioner is that he had been making a request for supply of the relevant file bearing No. 16-5/2011/DIG in which the departmental inquiry was ordered to be undertaken against the petitioner. However, the same was denied to him. He even raised a query demanding the said file under the Right to Information Act. The proceedings under the Right to Information Act travelled before the Central Information Commission (CIC). Before the CIC, the respondent gave