The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the disciplinary authority's power to order further inquiry under Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the limitation on the Enquiry Officer's authority to reopen the whole case in conducting further inquiry.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The Union of India and its officers have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders dated 17.7.2008 and 20.2.2009 (P-4 and P-7), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal), in O.A. No. 235/J&K/2007 and R.A. No. 36/2008 respectively.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that Shri Shashi Bhushan-respondent No. 1 initially joined the Department of Telecommunications as Engineer Supervisor Telephones. In due course of time, he was promoted as officiating Divisional Engineer (Phones) and posted as such at Ropar. On the basis of a complaint made to the Punjab Vigilance Department, respondent No. 1 was arrested on 25.11.2002. The matter was handed overto the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). After about 9 months, the C.B.I, referred back the case to the Punjab Vigilance Department finding that no criminal case was made out. However, the Punjab Government referred the case to the Ministry of Communication & IT., Department of telecommunications for taking departmental action. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 1 was suspended on 25.11.2002 and reinstated on 22.2.2006.

3. On 3.6.2005, a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, the Rules) was served upon respondent No. 1 with the allegation that while posted and officiating as Divisional Engineer, Ropar during the year 2002, he committed grave misconduct by demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from Shri Kuldip Kumar son of Shri Ram Chand for expediting new telephone connection at village {3ela, District Ropar (Annexure P-1/A). Respondent No. 1 denied the charge. The Chief General Manager Telecommunications, Punjab Circle-appellant No. 3 appointed Shri J.S. Mal, A.G.M. (R&E), as Enquiry Officer.

4. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry submitted his report to appellant No. 3 on 23.6.2006. It appears that appellant No. 3 sent the inquiry report to the competent disciplinary authority i.e. Member (Services) Telecom Commission- appellant No. 2 for taking a final decision. The competent disciplinary authority ordered for holding a de novo inquiry in the case from the stage of inspection/supply of listed documents as per Annexure-lll of the charge memo, vide letter No. 8-129/ 06-Vig. II, dated 4.10.2006. On the basis of order dated 4.10.2006, passed by the competent disciplinary authority, the Chief General Manager Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh-appellant No. 3, passed an order dated 31.10.2006, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Rule (2) read with sub-rule (22) of Rule 14 of the Rules, appointing Shri H.C. Ahuja, A.G.M. (Marketing) as an Enquiry Officer in place of Shri J.S. Mai, who was the earlier Enquiry Officer, to inquire into the charges framed against respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-1/B).

5. Against the order dated 31.10.2006, respondent No. 4 submitted a reply on 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-1/C). On 18.1.2007, the cometent authority i.e. Member (Services) Telecom Commission, passed another order superseding the order dated 31.10.2006. By placing reliance on Rule 15(1) of the rules, the competent authority ordered further inquiry in the case from the stage of inspection/supply of listed documents as per Annexure III of charge memo dated 3.6.2005 (Annexure P-1/D). Paras 3 and 4 of the order dated 18.1.2007, reads as under :-

"3. And whereas on completion of inquiry, inquiring authority submitted his report dated 23rd June, 06. It has been observed that during inquiry prosecution documentsas per details in Annexure III of charge Memo have not been taken on record though these documents were presented by PO and inspected by the charged Officer. This is a serious procedural lapse. It has also been noticed that deposition of S.W.2 and S.W.3 recorded on 16th December, 05 are same. S.W.3 has even not mentioned his designation correctly. This shows that I