Hon’ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.9.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application filed by him against the punishment order of compulsory retirement.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Superintendent (Building/Road) Grade-II by the Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow on 15.12.1964. Subsequently, he was promoted as Superintendent B/R Grade-I on the basis of the seniority by the Chief Engineer referring therein the Circular letter dated 22nd April, 1985 approved by the Engineer-In-Chief. The petitioner at the same time was also holding the post of Secretary, National Confederation of Central Government Employees as well as Vice President of Central Region of All India MES Civil Engineers Association (in short ‘AIMCEA’). Being the office-bearer of the aforesaid organizations, he used to raise the issues relating to welfare of the members of these organizations. While posted at Bareilly Zone, he alongwith other members of the AIMCEA, submitted a memorandum to the Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow regarding some problems on his arrival at Bareilly. As the petitioner was leading the delegation, therefore, the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone and Additional Chief Engineer, assuming it to be a complain against them, became highly annoyed and conspired against the petitioner pursuant to which he was placed under suspension vide order dated 6.7.1987 and later on served with three memorandums of charge-sheets.

3. The first charge-sheet was issued by the Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow on 7.8.1987 mentioning therein the charges of misconduct/mis-behaviour and collectively disrupting office functioning by leading the masses during office hours on 7.8.1987.

4. The second charge-sheet dated 26.9.1987 was issued by the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly mentioning therein that the petitioner entered forcibly in E-II Section of the office on 12.8.1987 and took away the attendance register kept on the table of the Superintendent without his permission and tampered with official documents by making cuttings and over-writings and later on barged into the room of Lieutenant Colonel Namubdri and behaved in a manner exhibiting disrespect and arrogance.

5. The third charge-sheet dated 31.12.1987 was issued by the Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow with the allegation that the petitioner entered into the chambers of the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone on 12.9.1987, used abusive language, threatened to use criminal force and behaved arrogantly. As the Chief Engineer was not competent to issue the charge-sheets, therefore, the petitioner moved a representation before Engineer-In-Chief, Bareilly Zone, through Chief Engineer with a request to decide as to who is the competent disciplinary authority, but rather than forwarding the said representation, Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, himself decided the matter vide order dated 30.11.1987. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing an Original Application No. 23 of 1988 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi with a further relief to quash the charge-sheets. The Tribunal decided the matter vide judgment dated 31th October, 1989 holding therein that the Chief Engineers are enjoying the delegated power of Engineer-In-Chief, therefore, they are the Competent Authority to impose punishment. However, it was left open to challenge the order of punishment, if any, which may be passed.

6. The said enquiry was conducted by Sri M.K. Chakorborty as Inquiry Officer. On the request of the petitioner, Sri. I.P. Gupta was permitted to act as defence helper of the petitioner. As the conduct of the Inquiry Officer was biased, hence, the petitioner moved a representation for change of the Inquiry Officer but no action was taken by the superior officers. Even, the charge-sheet dated 31.12.198