JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by its order dated 11.8.2021 rejected the Miscellaneous Application No. 198 of 2021 of the petitioner, thereby refusing to condone the delay of seven years, eight months and twenty-seven days in filing the Original Application No. 173 of 2021, consequentially the Original Application also stood dismissed.

1.1 It is the aforesaid order dated 11.8.2021 of the Tribunal which is prayed to be set aside in the present petition. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside the memorandum of charge dated 15.9.2012. Also prayed is to set aside order dated 30.7.2020 whereby respondent No. 4 was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner has next prayed to direct the respondents to release all the retiral dues, gratuity and other consequential benefits which the petitioner is entitled to receive upon attaining the age of superannuation.

2. In the Original Application before the Tribunal, the petitioner wanted a direction against the respondents to produce all documents, files and correspondence between the Home Department and State Government leading to issuance of memorandum of charge dated 15.9.2012 as well as order dated 30.4.2020. It was prayed to declare the said memorandum of charge, issued by the Principal Secretary, Home Department to be without authority in law. It was next prayed to set aside the aforementioned memorandum of charge and the order, further to command the respondents to release the retirement benefits.

2.1 Since there was a delay of 2826 days in filing the Original Application, the question of condonation of delay was required to be considered first by the Tribunal.

3. Noticing the facts in the background, the petitioner happens to be an Officer of Indian Police Service. He was issued show-cause notice and thereafter charge-sheet dated 15.9.2012 by respondent No. 3. Looking briefly at the charges levelled against the petitioner, it was stated that when the petitioner was transferred and appointed as Managing Director, Gujarat Sheep and Wool Development Corporation in November, 2009, he retained the services of four police personnel called orderlies, named in the charge-sheet, who were posted under the petitioner when the petitioner was Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad (Rural) and Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city. The petitioner took those personnel with him to take them under him to get work done from them even while working as Managing Director. It was stated that the post of the Managing Director was a civilian post and it was not permissible to take work from the orderlies from the police department. It was stated that by taking work from the police personnel at his Ahmedabad residence, provisions of Gujarat Manual, Part-III were breached by the petitioner.

3.1 It was the further charge that the petitioner continued to have the services of those orderlies even when he was transferred to New Delhi and that at the residence of New Delhi on 23.6.2011, one of the orderlies fell down and when taken to hospital privately, he was declared “brought dead.” For such acts of commissions and omissions three charges were levelled as per the above details stating that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of senior member of Indian Police Service in violation of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. It appears that in the departmental inquiry initiated, seven inquiry officers declined to work as Inquiry Officers and on 30.7.2020, a retired IAS Officer was appointed as Inquiry officer, who has been conducting inquiry against the petitioner.

3.2 While the challenge pertained to the question of condonation of delay, in course of the hearing learned senior advocate Mr. I.H. Syed with learned advocate Mr. Vishrut Bhandari proceeded to argue on the aspect of legality of the memorandum of charge and the departmental inquiry to raise a spree of contentions on that score. Learned senior advocate submitted that the inquiry initiated aga