This Original Petition arises out of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 18.2.2013 in O.A.No.458/2012. The 1st respondent herein filed the said O.A. seeking an order to quash Annex.A1 memo of charges and to direct the petitioners herein to disburse his gratuity and commuted value of pension and to regularise his monthly pension and grant interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement till date of actual payment.

2. The petitioners herein filed Ext.P3 reply statement contending that the 1st respondent herein is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the O.A. On receipt of the reply statement, the 1st respondent herein filed Ext.P4 rejoinder, which was followed by Ext.P5 additional reply statement filed by the petitioners herein. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 18.2.2013 set aside the proceedings initiated against the 1st respondent herein pursuant to Annex.A1 memo of charges. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal, the petitioners herein have approached this Court in this Original Petition.

3. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for Lakshadweep Administration representing the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/applicant and also the learned ASGI appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. Going by the pleadings and materials on record, the applicant retired from service on 31.3.2010, while working as Deputy Collector (HQ), Kavaratti. While working as Executive Magistrate and Deputy Collector (HQ), Kavaratti the applicant was issued with Annex.A1 memo of charges dated 3.1.2009 proposing an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charges levelled against him are regarding issuance of 376 Scheduled Tribe Certificates to ineligible persons, ignoring the guidelines and instructions issued by the administration. The applicant denied the charges by filing Annex.A2 written statement dated 14.1.2009. The disciplinary authority appointed the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries as the inquiring authority.

5. The applicant had approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.635/2011 challenging Annex.A1 memo of charges on the ground of delay. The said O.A. was allowed in part by Annex.A-8 order dated 20.7.2011, directing the petitioners herein to complete the inquiry and take a final decision in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Annex.A8 order read thus :

“3. Even though the challenge against the charge sheet is on the ground of delay, prima facie we are not satisfied to set aside the charge on the aforesaid ground as it requires further proof under which circumstances the charge sheet was issued and whether there was any undue delay resulting in denial of principles of natural justice. This is a matter to be inquired into based on facts and evidence regarding the same. Therefore, it is open to the applicant to bring such factual aspects on record at the time of inquiry. But we are not happy that the inquiry is still not completed even as on today. The applicant had already retired from service. He is being paid only provisional pension because of the pendency of the disciplinary action.

4. In the circumstances, we feel that there cannot be any further delay in the matter of completing the inquiry. Accordingly, the only relief that can be granted at this stage is to direct the respondents to complete the inquiry proceedings and to take a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months. We order accordingly.”

6. By Annex.A-8 order the Tribunal granted four months' time to take a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant. Seeking enlargement