ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1.

2. Petitioners being the Director General, Sports Authority of India and others are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2021 rendered in OA No.170/00332/2020, whereby, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the above application and was pleased to quash the charge memo dated 19.05.2020 and the subsequent order passed by petitioner No.1, appointing the enquiry officers and was further pleased to direct the petitioners to release the pension and all other retiral benefits forthwith. The Tribunal further directed to re-examine the case afresh and further ordered a denovo examination of the case afresh after considering the detailed explanation tendered by the petitioners and also further directed that the applicant having already retired on 31.05.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation, the provisions of Rule 9(2) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be made applicable to the applicant.

3. The facts in nutshell are that, the applicant was issued with a charge memo on the ground that he had approved the LTC claim of a superior officer, despite the fact that Air Tickets were not purchased through authorized agent and secondly there was a delay in remitting the professional tax collected by the Department. On these two grounds, the petitioners sought to move against the respondent on the eve of his superannuation.

4. Aggrieved by this, the respondent has approached the Tribunal on various grounds including the ground that no opinion has been formed by the competent authority as required under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and secondly that the approval granted was only provisional and subject to approval of the higher authorities and that the Air Tickets were infact purchased by the officers for travel by Air India only; that on the said date the authorized agent had already sold out all the tickets available with it/him and hence, they were constrained to purchase the tickets from third party agent but the approval was by Air India only. On these grounds, the impugned charge memo and subsequent orders were passed.

The Tribunal after hearing the parties in detail has culled out the alleged opinion formed by the Appellate Authority in internal page No.13 of the impugned order. Further, in para Nos.11, 12 and 13, the Tribunal has discussed this aspect of the matter in detail. It is categorically held that the communication dated 12.5.2020 does not reflect any satisfaction as required under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Furthermore, in para Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17, the Tribunal has observed as under:

"14.Keeping the above in view, the OA is allowed. The charge memo dated 19.05.2020 and the subsequent orders dated 23.06.2020, passed by the Director General, SAI, New Delhi (Disciplinary Authority) appointing the Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the Pension and all other retiral benefits due to the applicant which may have been withheld on account of the Impugned orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of these orders.

15. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) is further directed to re-examine the case denovo. After considering the detailed explanations given by the applicant, the DA shall first record its considered opinion under Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as to whether there are any grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against the applicant. Subsequently, after forming and recording his opinion, he may, if deemed necessary by him, consider issuing orders for initiating an enquiry. as per the procedure prescribed under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules.

16. Since the applicant has already retired on 31.05.2020, after attaining superannuation, the provisions under Rule-9 (2) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules relating to initiating enquiry proceedings against a Government Servant after att