JUDGMENT :

V. Sivagnanam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.05.2021 made in O.A.No.993/2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and consequently allow the O.A.)

1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 28.05.2021 in O.A.No.993 of 2013.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-Mr. Bala Soudarssanane retired from Indian Army and thereafter he joined in the service of JIPMER on 12.06.1997 as Licence Officer. Thereafter, he got promotion as Professor and functioned as Head of the Department at the relevant time. On 08.10.2010, a charge memo with certain allegations against the petitioner was issued. He challenged the said charge memo in O.A.No.1265 of 2010 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 08.04.2011. Against which he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9615 of 2011, before this Court, which was also dismissed on 29.07.2012, by directing the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry within three months. Since the petitioner has challenged the charge memo, issued against him, he neither submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Officer nor participated in the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer set the petitioner as exparte and proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. After completion of enquiry he submitted his report on 25.02.2012, alleging that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and the copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner. Even, thereafter, the petitioner did not submit any representation with regard to enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report passed the order on 01.06.2012, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected on 01.06.2013. The same was also challenged by filing the Original Application in O.A.No.993 of 2013. Which was dismissed on 28.05.2021. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order impugned in this writ petition.

3. He would further contended that there was no full and fair enquiry into the charges against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner requested the enquiry officer to furnish the documents to prove him as innocent with regard to the charges levelled against him. But the enquiry officer, without furnishing the document directed the petitioner to appear before him and sought relevancy of the documents for the enquiry and thereafter, he passed exparte order. The punishment order dated 01.06.2012 received by the petitioner without the signature of the members. However, the said order was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, which was not communicated to the petitioner immediately. The Tribunal without considering any points raised by the petitioner dismissed his application, on the ground that he had not participated in the enquiry proceedings, despite an opportunity was given to him. The Tribunal had not appreciated the fact that the petitioner by challenging the charge memo went upto Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed on 21.09.2011.

4. During the course of the litigations, the petitioner was under the impression that since the charge memo was challenged, there is no necessity for him to appear before the enquiry officer. The Tribunal was erred in holding that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity to give his reply and he orally instructed the enquiry officer not to proceed with the enquiry proceedings by letter dated 05.06.2011. The SLP was dismissed on 21.09.2011. The petitioner requested the enquiry officer to furnish the documents relied by the Management. The same was furnished to him at the end of September 2011. The enquiry