Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In the instant case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.6.1995 which is contained in Annexure 14 at page 108 by which the Chairman, Board of Trustee refused to interfere with the decision of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner and accordingly rejected the appeal thereby conforming the order of compulsory retirement passed on 4/11.8.1993 as contained in Annexure 12. Consequently, the petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the aforementioned order of compulsory retirement and has further made a prayer that appropriate orders be passed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including back-wages etc.

3. The facts which are necessary to be looked into for purposes of adjudicating this writ application are that in the year 1966, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner at Dhanbad whereafter he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk and posted as such in August 1975. The petitioner has stated that one S.A. Moiz (respondent No. 5) who, at the relevant time, was not appointed as Commissioner of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and who was merely holding a current duty charge and who was neither the appointing authority of the petitioner nor was conferred with the powers of the disciplinary authority, issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner on 20.8.1991 vide Annexure 2. According to the petitioner, he was himself an active member of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Karamchari Sangh and had been raising his voice against actions taken by the respondent No. 5.

4. The petitioner has alleged mala fides against S.A. Moiz (respondent No. 5) and upon perusal of the note sheets of this case put up by the office, it appears that notices on respondent No. 5 were returned due to his refusal and therefore notices were accepted to be validly served on him on account of such refusal.

5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 thereafter appointed one V.S. Yadav, Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Region 3, Dhanbad as Enquiry Officer and subsequently on the same day he issued yet another order appointing one A.K. Keshawa, Assistant Commissioner, Grade II, Coal Mines Provident Fund Office, Hyderabad as Presenting Officer.

6. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4, meaning thereby the Enquiry Officer, V.S. Yadav issued notice to the petitioner vide Annexure 6 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was informed about the proposed date of enquiry and was accordingly asked to attend the same on the date indicated therein.

7. One thing which is relevant to be taken note of is that upon perusal of Annexure 2 it is evident that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, while issuing the charge-sheet, stated that action may be taken against the petitioner for violation of Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)"Rules, 1964 read with Regulation 27 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964. Similarly, while issuing notice to the petitioner to attend inquiry vide Annexure 6, the Enquiry Officer made it clear that the departmental inquiry was under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. At paragraph 16, the petitioner has further stated that he requested permission for engaging of legal practitioner to defend him but when he received no positive response, he personally went to the respondent No. 5 and requested him that he should allow a legal practitioner to present his case, but the respondent No. 5 refused to do so and issued a memorandum to that effect on 11.2.1992 vide Annexure 7. From a perusal of Annexure 7, it is again apparent that the respondents have referred to the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)