J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. This petition has been filed impugning the order of the respondents dated December 11, 2012 terminating the services of the petitioner and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („Tribunal‟, hereinafter) dated August 10, 2015 affirming the termination.

2. At the outset, we may briefly narrate the facts of the case, as set out in the petition. The petitioner on being selected by Public Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7060/2016 Page 1 of 62 Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH Enterprises Selection Board and upon approval from Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was appointed as the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO) w.e.f. October 1, 2009. As per the terms of appointment, the petitioner was appointed for a period of five years or till the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever was earlier. Further, the terms of appointment stated that his services could be terminated by either side by giving three (3) months' notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. Further the terms of appointment stipulated review of performance after completion of one year of service. The NALCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 („CDA Rules‟, hereinafter) were made applicable to the services of the petitioner and the petitioner was eligible for superannuation benefits/benefits as per the Office Memorandum dated November 26, 2008 and February 4, 2009. Upon joining as CMD, NALCO, the service benefits the petitioner had earned with his previous employer- Cement Corporation of India Ltd. (CCI), including an earned leave of ₹6,81,480/- and gratuity of ₹2,24,130/- were transferred to NALCO on a requisition made by NALCO in that regard.

3. The petitioner successfully completed first year of his service and as per the terms of appointment, the administrative Ministry assessed the performance of petitioner as “outstanding” and cleared him for continuing in service for the remaining tenure/period. On the basis of clearance proposal by the Ministry, the Public Enterprises Selection Board recommended confirmation of services of the petitioner till his superannuation i.e., till January 31, 2014.

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7060/2016 Page 2 of 62 Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH

4. In the meanwhile, on February 25, 2011 the petitioner was implicated in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 („PC Act‟, hereinafter) pursuant to which the respondents placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from February 26, 2011. The stand of the petitioner is that as the case itself was false and ill motivated, the subsequent suspension is faulty. The respondent initiated an internal assessment to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, with advice solicited and received even from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide letter dated March 21, 2012. The respondent with the approval of the Minister of State (Independent Charge), Mines, who happened to be the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, as per the powers delegated to him by the President of India under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, invoked the provisions of Rule 33 of CDA Rules vide note dated April 27, 2012, sought to be placed before the ACC, which provides special procedure such as, in the eventuality it is impracticable to hold a regular enquiry, the same may be dispensed with before taking action under Regulation 26, which prescribes for imposition of penalties including the major penalty of termination. The reason for premature termination of the applicant was mentioned as “due to vigilance matter”. No reason was given for invoking the special clause, which is required to be recorded in writing.

5. However, the actions as per the CDA Rule 5(2) “taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification” were set at nought and the respondent realising that disciplinary action would be a time consuming exercise, dr