JUDGMENT

[PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-

1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29th March, 2016 passed by the Respondent No.3, whereby the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29th March, 2016. The Petitioner is also challenging the Order dated 6th September, 2017 passed by the Respondent No.3, imposing upon the Petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from the services w.e.f. 6th September, 2017. The Petitioner is also seeking direction against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to reinstate the Petitioner in services with continuity in services, full back wages and other consequential benefits as if no such impugned Orders have been passed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent No.1. The Petitioner was appointed on 13th July, 1985, and he was working as Professor in the school of social work of the Respondent No.1 i.e. Tata Institute of Social Sciences. He was also a ex-student of the Respondent No.1. The Respondents alleged that the Petitioner had created a parallel WhatsApp group styled as “TISSians Career Impact2” without the permission of the Institution and that too with the institute’s official logo. This was a clear violation of Clause No.21 of the Code of conduct applicable to the “TISS employees”. It was further alleged that the Petitioner by creating the parallel group for placement services, therefore, breached his service conditions. The WhatsApp group created by the Petitioner was nothing but virtually a placement service, soliciting students and alumni for his personal gains. According to the Respondents, this also amounted to engaging in business of placement services, which he being a full-time, permanent faculty of the Institute was prohibited from doing under the Service Rules. Apart from this, using the logo of the Institute, was also an infringement of intellectual rights of the Institute. The Petitioner was alleged to have used the Institute’s resources, knowledge and information, which was in breach of the accepted service conditions, besides being a criminal offence under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act 2000. The Petitioner was vide an Order dated 29th March, 2016 placed under suspension under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [for short “CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965”].

3. The Respondent No.3 thereafter issued a memorandum of charges on 22nd April, 2016 to the Petitioner where the charges are mentioned in detail. The Petitioner by his reply dated 1st May, 2016 denied the charges levelled against him. The Respondent No.3 thereafter appointed an Inquiry Committee to inquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner and appointed the Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the Respondents. By an Order dated 22nd September, 2016, the Petitioner was informed that the period of suspension was extended further by 90 days. The Respondent No.3 by an Office Order dated 28th October, 2016 appointed ‘One Man Committee’ of Professor D.N. Sandanshiv who is the Respondent No.4 to conduct the inquiry. The Petitioner vide several letters requested the Respondent No.3 to change the Inquiry Authority namely Respondent No.4, who was biased against him and had prejudged the issues. Since the Petitioner was not allowed to engage a lawyer to present his case before the Inquiry Committee, he had filed Writ Petition No. 10966 of 2016 before this Court. This Court vide an Order dated 26th April, 2017, directed the Respondent No.4 to permit the Petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent his case. Thereafter, the oral evidence of Witness No.1 was recorded. The Petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 11th July, 2017. The Petitioner however, was not provided an opportunity to submit his written brief as provided under rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The Petitioner was forwarded the Inquiry Authority’s Report dated 22nd July, 2017 al