JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayers:

(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Hon'ble Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.

(b) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 27.01.2014 and 22.04.2014 of appointment of IO/PO by the Respondent.

(c) Quash and set aside the Impugned Charge-Memo dated 04.09.2013 and subsequent Inquiry Proceedings/Findings of Inquiry Officer & orders of suspension of proceedings in the interest of justice.

(d) Direct the respondent to implement by issuing immediately the order dated 31.10.2013 of exoneration of the Petitioner from all the charges recorded by the then Disciplinary Authority.

(e) Direct the respondent to release the pending salaries of the period of medical leave between 17.08.2012 to 05.09.2013 alongwith 18% interest on total amount of pending salaries and all other consequential benefits in accordance with law.

(f) Restrain the Respondent from issuing any adverse order other than the order of exoneration dated 31.10.2013 of the Applicant from all the charges recorded by the then Disciplinary Authority.

(g) Call the complete record/case file of the O.A. No. 2422/2022 from the court no 2, Honourable Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.

(h) Pass any such order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2......

(i) In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior Engineer (JE) in the year 1991 with the respondent-Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and subsequently selected as Assistant Engineer (AE) in DJB through direct recruitment in the year 1999. Further, he was entrusted with the charge of Executive Engineer (Civil) in February, 2006. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 17.08.2012 to 05.09.2013. The charge memo was duly replied by the petitioner vide letter/reply dated 18.09.2013 along with copies of medical-cum-fitness certificate for availing the leave during 17.08.2012 to 05.09.2013.

(ii) Shri Hozer Lollen, the then Disciplinary Authority/Member(A) by exercising powers conferred on him under Rule 14(2), (4) and (5a) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 read with Govt. of India’s decision Para 1 (a) and (b) of Govt. of India, MHA OM No. 11012/2/79-Estt.(A) dated 12.03.1981 and OM No. 11012/8/82-Estt.(A) dated the 08.12.1982, exonerated the petitioner from all the charges considering the written statement of defence vide noting dated 31.10.1993 recorded in the office file. However, despite an application filed by the petitioner for exoneration on 10.03.2014, departmental proceedings were initiated against him.

(iii) Further, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order as communicated on 11.11.2014 that since the IO/PO has already been appointed in this case, there is no scope for the Disciplinary Authority under any Rule to intervene at this stage. Thereafter, a fresh request for implementation of order of exoneration was made by the petitioner vide representation dated 19.11.2014 to the CEO, DJB. Legal advice was also taken by DJB on the said application/representation dated 19.11.2014 wherein the Legal Adviser opined that the Disciplinary Authority can discharge the charged officer after considering his written statement of defence, if he finds the petitioner to be not at fault.

(iv) The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 16.04.2016 to the Member (A), DJB which was put up on 18.07.2016 before the Disciplinary Authority for decision. The inquiry report was thereafter supplied to the petitioner by the respondent-department on 19.08.2016 against which a request was again made by the petitioner to implement the order dated 13.10.2013 whereby the petitioner was exonerated.

(v) Thereafter, on 12.06.2017, the Disciplinary Authority decided to kee