JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Lissing Perme, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

2. The writ petition i.e. WP(c)478(AP)2019 has been filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the inquiry report, dated 14.09.2018, and the order, dated 12.08.2019, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. TAX(E)–48/2017 whereby the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 15(4) readwith rule 11(vii) of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, pursuant to the inquiry report, dated 14.09.2018, submitted by Dr. Tapasya Raghav, IAS, in terms of the Order No. TAX(E)-48/2017/486, dated 22.08.2017, regarding conducting the inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, pursuant to the inquiry report, dated 14.09.2018, against the petitioner.

3. The subsequent petition i.e. WP(c)20(AP)2020 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 13.12.2019, passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, against the inquiry report, dated 14.09.2018, as well as the disciplinary order, dated 12.08.2019, in addition to the challenge made in WP(c)478(AP)2019, namely, the inquiry report, dated 14.09.2018, and the disciplinary order, dated 12.08.2019.

4. Since what have been put to challenge in WP(c)478(AP)2019 have also been put to challenge in WP(c)20(AP)2020 in addition to the additional challenge made to the order, dated 13.12.2019, passed by the appellate authority, the facts pleaded in WP(c)20(AP)2020, shall be referred to, for adjudication of both these writ petitions, which, briefly, stated are as under:

Consequent upon lodging of an First Information Report(FIR), dated 05.07.2017 against the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Itanagar, alleging sexual assault on a minor; registration of the Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 57/2017 under sections 341/354 of the Indian Panel Code readwith section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the arrest of the petitioner in connection therewith, the petitioner who was working as a Joint Commissioner, Tax & Excise, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was put under suspension by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide order, dated 22.08.2017, issued under Memo. No. TAX-(E)/48/2017/486.

As the petitioner’s suspension order was not reviewed by the respondents within a period of 90 days, thereafter, on an intervention made by this Court in WP(c)777(AP)2019, filed by the petitioner; he was reinstated in service vide order, dated 21.11.2017, and pursuant thereto, the petitioner rejoined in service on 19.07.2018.

In a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, which, however, continued; memorandum of charges, dated 20.10.2017, by the Commissioner, Tax & Excise, vide Memo. No. TAX(E)-48/2017/548 was served upon the petitioner along with 3(three) article of charges made against the petitioner, to which, the petitioner filed his reply on 23.10.2017.

It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of the departmental proceeding, the Inquiry Officer had summoned the petitioner only once on 17.07.2018, on which date, the petitioner had appeared before the Inquiry Officer and gave his explanation. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted her report, on 14.09.2018. On furnishing of the inquiry report, dated 14.09.2018; the petitioner submitted his reply to the said inquiry report, on 06.12.2018, the disciplinary authority after consideration of the inquiry report as well as the reply subm