ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in dismissing the Original Application No.681 of 2009, the applicant therein has filed the present petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that when he was working as an Administrative Officer, he was issued a charge sheet dated 22.12.1995. The same was challenged by filing Original Application No.449 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was disposed off vide order dated 19.2.2002. The writ petition filed against the said order in W.P. No.477 of 2003 was disposed off vide order dated 24.1.2003 with the liberty to the writ petitioner to seek review of the order of the Tribunal. Thereafter, Review Application No.2 of 2003 and Original Application No.449 of 1996 were allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.3.2003. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were quashed with a liberty to the respondents to proceed from the stage of the charge sheet. The said order was upheld in W.P. No.1958 of 2003 filed by the respondents-Union of India. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued on 2.6.2006, namely, three years after the order was passed by the Tribunal. The said order was questioned before the Tribunal. Thereafter, orders were issued appointing the Inquiring Officer as well as the Presenting Officer for convening the departmental enquiry. The said order was sought to be challenged by filing the instant O.A. No.681 of 2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. On hearing learned counsels, the original application was dismissed. Hence, this petition is filed.

3. Shri Brian Da'Silva, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside. That the Tribunal committed an error in misreading the material on record. The same is defended by the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The material on record would indicate that firstly there was a belated charge sheet issued after a gap of three years from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.449 of 1996 dated 28.3.2003. Thereafter by the order vide Annexure-P/2 dated 17.10.2006, the charge sheet dated 2.6.2006 was withdrawn and consequently the appointment of the Inquiring Officer and the Presenting Officer was also withdrawn. Therefore, as on that date neither a charge sheet existed nor there was any Inquiring Officer. However, the disciplinary authority was appointed by the department w.e.f. 10.5.2006 to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of the charge sheet. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that what was challenged before the Tribunal was only the appointment of the Inquiring Officer and its related issues and not the issuance of the charge sheet and related issues. The facts of the case are undisputed.

5. On considering the contentions as well as the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for.

6. So far as the charge sheet dated 2.6.2006 is concerned, admittedly the same has been withdrawn in terms of Annexure-P/2 dated 17.10.2006. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents. The appointment of the disciplinary authority was in terms of the order dated 10.5.2006 i.e. much prior to the withdrawal of the charge sheet. Even assuming that the respondents intended to continue with the proceedings against the petitioner then necessarily a fresh charge sheet would have to be issued and consequently a new Inquiring Officer had to be appointed. This is so in view of the withdrawal of earlier charge sheet by the order dated 17.10.2006. That when the charge sheet does not exist and the consequential Inquiring Officer also is not present in view of the withdrawal of both the orders, the question of continuing the disciplinary proceedings would not lie. In the absence of the charge sheet, there can be no proceedings against the petitioner. This