MOOL CHAND GARG, J. - (1.)The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has assailed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in TA No. 95/2007 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the charge sheet issued to the respondent on the ground of delay in issuing the charge sheet, non-furnishing of listed documents to the charged official besides refusing permission for engaging a defence assistant by observing that such conduct of the petitioner has prejudiced the rights of the respondent for self defence.
(2.)The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that information was received by the Finance Department, DDA regarding the respondent having engaged himself in a civil contractor business through his minor son Shri Mahesh Kumar without intimating the registration of his son to the petitioner. After this information came to the notice of the petitioners on 9.1.1998 a memo was issued to the respondent and on 14.9.1998 the case was referred to Vigilance Department for further investigation. The statement of the respondent was recorded during investigation on 16.8.1999 where he admitted that his son was working in DDA as civil contractor though denied that he was either minor or was living with him. On the basis of this statement correspondence was made by the petitioner with various independent departments such as Contractor Registration Board, Income Tax Department and other divisions where the alleged contractor i.e. minor son of respondent executed works. During the course of such investigation it came to the light of the department that the date of birth of the son of the respondent Shri Mahesh Kumar was 15.8.1977 which prima facie establishes that at the time of execution of the work he was about 15-16 years of age. Being a minor he was not eligible to take any professional occupation. This gave strength to the allegation made against the respondent that the registration of his son with CPWD as a contractor was actually obtained by the respondent on fictitious grounds. It is alleged that this information was not given by the respondent to DDA. It was submitted that on the basis of the evidence collected it was opined that prima facie it discloses a misconduct on the part of respondent and accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him which was replied to by the respondent on 16.11.2004.
(3.)Against the initiation of the departmental enquiry the respondent filed a writ petition before this court which was transferred to the Tribunal. However, the enquiry was concluded during the course of those proceedings and the enquiry officer submitted its report. The Tribunal set aside the charge sheet and the enquiry report vide order dated 8.5.2008. Hence this petition.