A de novo inquiry is permissible under Rule 26(1) of the CDA Rules when substantial evidence or procedural defects existed in the prior inquiry, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above and the submissions made, the Petitioner prays that the Hon'ble High Court may be graciously pleased to:

(i) Allow the present petition and set aside/quash the impugned Order bearing reference No.C-14011/01/2019- V&S dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure P -8) passed by the Respondent by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction;

(ii) set aside/quash any consequential orders passed in pursuance thereof by the Respondents;

(iii) allow exemplary costs of the present Writ Petition to the Petitioner against the Respondents; and

(v) pass such other and further order/(s) as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts, circumstances and premises of the present case."

2. In substance the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated June 30, 2020, whereby the President being the Appointing Authority of the petitioner has decided that an Inquiry Officer may be appointed to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and has accordingly appointed former CVO of PFC Limited Mr. Birendra Kumar as the Inquiry Officer and with a further prayer that the consequent orders passed thereof be also set aside.

3. The facts as noted from the record are that on December 08, 2013, the petitioner was appointed as Director (Finance) in NTPC Ltd. Government of India Enterprise by the respondent for a period of five years. On December 07, 2017, an FIR was registered by CBI against the petitioner along with Rohit Reddy Bathina (Director of M/s BGR Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd.) and Prabhat Kumar (Associate of Rohit Reddy Bathina), under Sections 11 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On December 07, 2017 and December 08, 2017, a preliminary investigation was initiated by CBI. The search and seizure was conducted at the petitioner's residence in Delhi as well as at Bhubaneswar and also at his office in Delhi.

4. On December 16, 2017, the petitioner was put under suspension with immediate effect on the basis of the FIR registered against him. On December 07, 2018, the memorandum of charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The tenure of the petitioner ended on December 08, 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that despite several representations, the respondent has not released the retirement benefits on completion of his tenure.

5. On December 13, 2018, the petitioner replied to the memorandum of charge sheet issued by the respondent. During 2018-2019, inquiry proceedings were held. It is the case of the petitioner that on August 04, 2020, the petitioner received the impugned order dated June 30, 2020, w