| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/54574 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai |
| Decided On | Sep-14-2004 |
| Judge | K B Anand, S Deshmukh |
| Reported in | (2005)(2)SLJ104CAT |
| Appellant | Chandrakant Shankarrao Marne |
| Respondent | Union of India (Uoi) and ors. |
2. The applicant's case is that he was appointed in the office of Inspectorate of Armaments, Khadki as an orderly on 5.3.1983. He was transferred and posted at Ammunition Factory, Khadki on merger on 22.10.1984. He was removed from service without any enquiry or chargesheet or departmental enquiry on 7.7.1987. The applicant had preferred an appeal against the removal order. The appeal was not disposed of and he filed an O.A.No. 386/1988 against the removal order.
The said O.A. was disposed of on 25.2.1991 with direction to dispose of the appeal within two months. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by its order dated 16.4.1991. The applicant filed the O.A. No.614/91 against the removal order. The said O.A. was allowed by quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 7.7.1987 issued by the respondents. Respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant in service in the post in which he was placed at the time of termination from service but without backwages. The applicant had filed the C.P.No. 80/95 which was decided on 31.7.1995. The applicant was reinstated in service on 3.8.1995. The applicant filed the appeal before the Director General of Ordnance Factories on 29.3.1996. The applicant had filed O.A. bearing No. 1229/96 which was decided on 7.8.1997 directing the respondents payment of salary from 24.8.1994 to 3.8.1995. The applicant preferred a review petition No. 86/1997 in O.A. No. 1229/96 requesting the grant of pay from 5.3.1994 to 5.8.1995. The applicant filed the O.A. 1246/96, which was disposed of on 10.10.1997 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 29.3.1996. The applicant was issued chargesheet on 13.6.1997. He denied the allegations in the chargesheet. The applicant had nominated Shri S.M.Joshi working under Controller of Quality Assurance (Ammunition) Khadki as his Defence Assistant. The Enquiry Officer did not inform the Controlling Authority to relieve Shri S.M. Joshi despite repeated request. It is contended that the respondents had advised the Enquiry Officer to request to spare the service of Defence Assistant from his Controlling Authority. No action was taken to allow Shri S.M. Joshi to act as a Defence Assistant to the applicant. The Enquiry Officer fixed the dated on 19.5.2000 for enquiry without getting approval of the Disciplinary Authority to relieve Shri S.M. Joshi to assist the applicant. The applicant represented to the Enquiry Officer on 19.5.2000 and appointed out that correct procedure is not followed and hence the services of Defence Assistant could not be secured and requested to take the services of another Defence Assistant. He also informed that since the Enquiry Officer was to retire on 31.5.2000 it is better to change the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that the proceedings dated 19.5.2000 was received by him along with notice on 24.05.2000 to produce the list of documents list of witnesses and inspect the official record which is sought to be relied upon in support of the chargesheet. Five days' time was given to him which was to expire on 29.5.2000 but the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry on 26.05.2000 and thus violated the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is also contended that the proceedings dated 19.5.2000 shows that the applicant, the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were present. Even then the statement of three witnesses were shown to have been recorded on 19.5.2000. It is contended that the statements of these three witnesses were recorded on 23.1.2000 and 24.1.2000 and falsely shown to have recorded on 19.5.2000. It is contended that those three witnesses were not present on 19.5.2000 and thus there was no question of their being any examination of these three witnesses on 19.5.2000. The applicant was given the depositions of these three witnesses along with report of Enquiry Officer dated 26.5.2000. It is also contended that the fact these three witnesses were never examined in the presence of applicant is proved by the fact that the Presenting Officer Shri C. Murlidharan in his written statement dated 19.5.2000 has informed the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that the entire proceedings are conducted against the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer has not held the charges 1 and 2 as proved nor he has held as not proved. It is contended that the office notes were never given to the applicant. Those are not legal evidence in the absence of proof before the Enquiry Officer. The order of removal from services is bad in law. The applicant had filed the appeal dated 25.10.2000 which was returned to the applicant the applicant was directed to file appeal to the Member/A&E Ordnance Factory Board, Calcutta. Accordingly, applicant filed the fresh appeal on 3.1.2001 the period of six months is ended on 3.7.2001. The appellate had not taken any decision on the appeal of the applicant.
3. The applicant thus filed the O.A. The O.A. was disposed of by order dated 18.12.2001 with the direction to the Member, CA & E, Ordnance Factory Board to consider the appeal so filed by the applicant and dispose of within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The applicant was given liberty to file a fresh O.A. after exhausting other remedies.
4. The appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed by order dated 1.3.2002. Thereafter the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 2013/2002 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 8.1.2003 by directing the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to restore the O.A. to file and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Applicant was granted four weeks time to amend the O.A. The applicant accordingly got amended the O.A.5. The respondents appeared and filed their counter affidavit. The respondents contended that there is overwhelming evidence on record.
The applicant has been continuously non-cooperating with the Inquiry Officer who was ultimately forced to proceed with the Enquiry ex parte.
It is contended that the applicant is a Court bird. The present application is the 14th legal proceeding which the applicant has instituted against the respondents. The applicant had an extremely bad record of service and the O.A. is barred by res judicata and/ or constructive res judicata and or filing repeated applications for the same or similar reliefs. It is contended that the order dated 11.10.2000 is passed by the Disciplinary Authority after following due process and is in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the applicant failed to attend the enquiry and co-operate with the Court of Inquiry proceedings by habitually submitting applications to postpone the Court of Inquiry. It is contended that as per inquiry report an ex parte notice was issued on 20.5.2000 and 5 days' time was given to the applicant to submit the names of defence witnesses and documents. However, the applicant failed to do so and Inquiry Officer was not left with any alternative but to conclude the enquiry ex parte. It is contended that the responsibility to bring the Defence Assistant on the dates fixed for hearing is entirely that of the applicant. The applicant in the present case was insisting upon making the service of a particular Govt. servant to act as his Defence Assistant and had failed to nominate another Defence Assistant. As a result, the disciplinary proceedings got unduly delayed wherein 13 dates of hearing were fixed for which no one else but the applicant himself should be held responsible. The applicant himself chose not to participate by remaining silent even though physically present at the time of examination of each witness when he was asked whether desired to cross-examine those witnesses. It is contended that rules as applicable to the employees of the Ordnance Factories have been followed.
6. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry proceedings as per the provisions laid down under the CCS (CCA) Rules. There is no violation of principles of natural justice or the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The Enquiry Officer has categorically given assessment of evidence and findings on each and every article of charges levelled against the applicant and has also arrived at just and equitable conclusion that all the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved ex parte. The removal order dated 11.10.2000 issued as per provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The order dated 01.03.2002 has been passed after considering all the averments and allegations made by the applicant in his appeal and no illegality has been proved by the applicant in the said order.
7. The applicant filed the rejoinder and reiterated the contentions of the O.A.9. The applicant filed M.P. No. 133/2004 for issuing notice to Shri Subhash Baila, Joint General Manager/Administration of Ammunition Factory Khadki for Perjury under Sections 191, 192, 193 of the I.P.C.It is contended that the said Shri Baila has stated that he is filing the Sur-rejoinder on the basis of his personal knowledge and that he has not suppressed any material facts and stated falsehood instead of speaking the truth. It is contended that the applicant has submitted consent letter of Shri S.M. Joshi, U.D.C. working under Controlerate of Quality Assurance (Ammunition, Khadki) dated 13.8.1997. Shri Baila has falsely stated that the applicant conveniently failed and intentionally neglected to produce to the Enquiry Officer a Consent Letter of Shri S.M. Joshi and is liable to be proceeded for commission of perjury under Sections 191, 192 & 193 of I.P.C. It is further contended that the production of consent letter is mandatory is also not correct and is false. The further contention of Shri Baila that the question of intimating the Controlling Authority of the applicant is optional and not mandatory is false, because the rule requires that the Controlling Authority has to relieve the Defence Assistant only after the Enquiry Officer informs the Controlling Authority, the date, time and place of enquiry against them. In the instant case the applicant has made repeated representations pointing out to the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer that the Controlling Authority of the Defence Assistant Shri S.M. Joshi be informed. The E.O. failed to inform the Controlling Authority to Shri S.M. Joshi even on a single occasion.
Further the allegation of Shri Baila that the applicant was indifferent, non-co-operative and adamant in totally false, because the O.A. filed by the applicant and the conduct of the departmental enquiry show that the Enquiry Officer failed and neglected to inform the Controlling Authority of the Defence Assistant regarding the date, time and place of the enquiry. The allegation of Shri Baila that the Defence Assistant has to obtain the permission of the Controlling Authority is also false. The allegation that other particulars of Shri Joshi were not subjected are also false. The allegation that Shri Joshi should have obtained permission of the Controlling Authority to absent himself from his office in order to assist the applicant during the enquiry is also false. The allegation of Shri Baila that it is the duty of the applicant to bring his Defence Assistant at the enquiry is also false.
10. The respondents filed counter affidavit to the M.P. for Perjury and denied the contention that it created or intended to create any false record or false evidence. The Enquiry Officer permitted the applicant to bring Shri. S.M. Joshi to defend him during the enquiry proceedings.
The question of Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to release Shri S.M. Joshi to defend the applicant during enquiry proceedings does not arise. It is contended that the respondents had made submissions in Sur-Rejoinder dated 27.01.2004 in his official capacity on the basis of the information available on record and no personal interest or grudge of whatsoever nature I had while making the said submissions. It is also contended that the allegation made by the applicant regarding making false evidence and fabricating false documents are baseless. The submissions made in the Sur-rejoinder are purely based on the documents and the record made available to me. The allegation of offence under Section 191, 192 & 193 of I.P.C. are baseless and no question arises of initiating any proceedings for perjury. The Sur-rejoinder is filed in official capacity as Administrative Officer and Inquiry Officer and there was no personal knowledge about the applicant. The Inquiry Officer had repeatedly directed the applicant to bring his defence assistant with him and since the applicant failed to do so the Inquiry Officer had conducted and concluded the inquiry proceedings ex parte.
The consent letter was directly submitted by the applicant to the Enquiry Officer who had since retired on superannuation and is not available for confirmation and verification.
11. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. D.V. Gangal for the applicant and Mr.
R.K. Shetty, learned Counsel for the respondents.
12. Mr. D.V. Gangal, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been denied the reasonable opportunity to defend his case by not taking steps to secure the presence of Defence Assistant nominated by the applicant. The learned Counsel submitted that the denial of such right will be violative of principles of natural justice. The entire enquiry vitiates for denial of the right given under Rule 14 (8) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment in the case of R.M. Batish v. UOI and Anr.
1989(9) ATC 621=1989(3) SLJ 516 (CAT--Chandigarh), R. Rober v. UOI and Anr. 1991(16) ATC 671 and 71 Kanni v. Supdt. of Post Offices, Arkonam and Anr. 1989(9) ATJ 222=1989(3) SLJ 501 (CAT--Madras). The learned Counsel further submitted that the proceedings of 19.5.2001 was received by the applicant on 24.5.2000 along with the notice to produce list of documents, list of witnesses and inspect the official record which is sought to be relied upon in support of the chargesheet. The learned Counsel submitted that the stipulated period of five days which was given to the applicant was to expire on 29.5.2000. But the Enquiry Officer has held up the enquiry on 26.5.2000 and thus violated the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The learned Counsel further submitted that the proceedings dated 19.5.2000 also show that applicant, the E.O. and the Presenting Officer were only present. Yet, how the statements of three witnesses are shown to be recorded on 19.5.2000. The presence of so-called three witnesses was not disclosed.
He submitted that as per P.O's report the statements of these three witnesses were recorded on 23.1.2000 and 24.1.2000, but the I.O.falsely shown as recorded on 19.5.2000. These three witnesses were factually not present at the time of the enquiry on 19.5.2000. The learned Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer fabricated the illegal evidence. The learned Counsel also submitted that the report of board of enquiry has been relied upon. However, this report has not been cited in the chargesheet. The learned Counsel also submitted that Shri Baila, the Joint General Manager, (Administration) Khadki who had filed the Sur-rejoinder is liable to be prosecuted for violations under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of IPC who has created false evidence and gave false statements.
12A. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Shetty, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant to produce the Defence Assistant. The learned Counsel submitted that the responsibility to bring the Defence Assistant on the date fixed for hearing is entirely on that applicant as the applicant did not secure the presence of the Defence Assistant, the Enquiry Officer was compelled to hold the enquiry in the absence of Defence Assistant. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant used to be present but did not participate in the inquiry in question. The enquiry cannot be said to have been vitiated on that count. Further the learned Counsel submitted that the papers on record show that the statements of these three witnesses have been recorded on 19.5.2000. The learned Counsel further submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant. The learned Counsel also submitted that the applicant did not show that prejudice is caused to him because of non-providing the assistance of a Defence Assistant.
13. We have considered that rival submissions of the parties, perused the papers on record and the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for parties. The applicant in the present O.A. has been issued chargesheet with the following four articles of charges: "Article-I--That the said Shri C.S. Marne, Orderly, now posted at Dighi, Magazine, Stores Section, while functioning at HRD Centre of AFK is charged with gross misconduct i.e. 'Abusing threatening and manhandling co-employee', in violation of Sub-rule 1 (ii) Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II--That the said Shri C.S. Marne, Orderly, now posted at Dighi Magazine, Stores Section, while functioning at HRD Section is, charged with gross misconduct viz: wilful neglect of duty i.e.
habitually reporting late for 'duty'. This is in violation of Sub-rule 1 (ii) Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III--That the said Shri C.S. Marne, Orderly, now posted at Dighi Magazine Stores Section, while functioning as Orderly at HRD Section is charged with gross misconduct viz; wilful neglect of duty i.e. 'Refusal of Official duties'. This is in violation of Sub-rule 1(ii) Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV--That the said Shri C.S. Marne, Orderly, now posted at Dighi, Magazine, Stores Section, while functioning at HRD Section is charged with gross misconduct viz. wilful neglect of duty i.e.
'missing from place of duty and laying despatch work'. This in violation of Sub-rule 1(ii) Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
14. There is no dispute that the applicant had nominated Shri S.M.Joshi working under the Controller of Quality Assurance (Ammunition) Khadki as his Defence Assistance. It is also apparent from the record that the applicant had submitted the consent letter of Shri S.M. Joshi showing willingness to act as his Defence Assistant dated 13.8.1997 to the General Manager, Ammunition Factory. The consent letter is at page 206 of the paper book. The consent letter mentions that he is willing to function as a Defence Assistant in the enquiry of the applicant provided permission of his employer is sought. So, the consent letter show that permission of the employer of Shri Joshi was to be sought. It is also apparent that the respondents had advised the Enquiry Officer to intimate to the Competent Authority to spare the services of applicant's defence assistant on the date of enquiry, which is brought on record at page 52. It is also apparent that the applicant had requested the Enquiry Officer for taking necessary action to make the services of Shri S.M. Joshi as his Defence Assistant, available to him by making representations which are brought on record at page 72, 74 & 75 of the paper book. It appears that the Enquiry Officer was of the view that it is the responsibility of the applicant to bring the Defence Assistant on the date fixed for enquiry. Rule 14(8) of the CCS (CCA) Rules is mandatory rule that rule regulated the guarantee given to the Govt. servant under Article 311 of the Constitution.C.L. Subramaniam v.Collector of Customs, Cochin, AIR 1972 SC 2178 that "Rule 15 (5) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957, (corresponding to the present Rule 14(8) which enables a Government servant to have a Defence Assistant is mandatory.
Moreover, when an official is charged with breach of a rule entailing serious consequences, he is not likely to be in a position to present his case as best as it should be. Any adverse verdict against him is bound to be disastrous to him. In such a situation, he cannot be expected to act calmly and with deliberation. Therefore, this rule has provided for the assistance of any other Government servant and if the Government servant was denied the request for a Defence Assistant, it would amount to denying a reasonable opportunity to defend his case." The Enquiry Officer should have taken all necessary steps to ensure the presence of Defence Assistant nominated by the charged employee during the enquiry. From the facts set out, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer did not afford the applicant necessary facilities to have the assistance of another Govt. servant to defend him which assistance he was entitled to under the rules. It appears that the applicant was deprived of that assistance solely because of the view adopted by the Enquiry Officer that it is the responsibility of the applicant to secure the presence of the Defence Assistant.
16. It is also apparent from the representation dated 19.5.2000 made by the applicant that he is desirous of seeking the services of some other persons as his Defence Assistant when the presence of his nominated Defence Assistant Shri S.M. Joshi was not secured by the Enquiry Officer intimating the Controlling Authority of Shri Joshi for sparing the services for the Defence Assistant to the applicant on the date of enquiry. It appears from the record that the Enquiry Officer examined three witnesses on 19.5.2000. It is true that the nothing of 19.5.2000 does not disclose that the presence of these three witnesses neither it mentions that these three witnesses were examined but the record shows that the Enquiry Officer had examined these three witnesses on 19.5.2000. The applicant had refused to cross-examine the witnesses.
The enquiry report dated 26.5.2000 mentions in Para 4 "that Shri Marne, i.e. applicant failed to co-operate before the Court of Inquiry on 19.5.2000 in the proceedings and produced a letter dated 19.5.2000. As such the Court has examined the prosecution witnesses in the case and recorded their statements on 19.5.2000". Thus, it is apparent that these three witnesses were examined on 19.5.2000 though it does not mention in the noting dated 19.5.2000. It is also apparent that the present applicant has not raised this point before the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority that these three witnesses were not examined on 19.5.2000. If the witnesses would not have been examined on the date 19.5.2000 the applicant would have raised this point while making representations against the report of the Enquiry Officer and also in the appeal preferred against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Graver, 1995(6) SCC (L&S) 279=1996(1) SLJ 145 (SC), it has been held by the Apex Court that more so, that at no point of time during the departmental proceedings or before the Appellate Authority did he raise any objection regarding non-furnishing of the statement of the allegations. In the Deokinandan Sharma v. UOI and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 1079 the Apex Court held that the plea that Enquiry Officer had not afforded reasonable opportunity to adduce his defence evidence, not raised before such authorities in such circumstances, raising of the said plea before the Supreme Court is held impermissible.
16A. We have mentioned that the applicant did not raise the objection in question either before the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. He cannot raise the said objection for the first time in the O.A.17. It is also apparent that the ex parte order was sent to the applicant Shri C.S. Marne on 20.5.2000 directing him to appear before the Court of inquiry within 5 days of the receipt of the said letter to inspect the documents mentioned in Annexure III of the Memorandum and also submit/produce any document which he has not brought before the Court within five days. It is apparent that xerox copy of the said notice dated 19.5.2000 was received by him on 24.5.2000. It is also apparent that the Enquiry Officer has concluded his enquiry on 26.5.2000 and submitted his report. As per the notice, the applicant was given 5 days time to inspect the documents mentioned in Annexure III to the Memorandum dated 13.6.1997.
18. We have discussed that the applicant was not given the Defence Assistance by securing the presence by intimating the Controlling Authority and thus the applicant could not defend or cross-examine the witnesses. We have also mentioned that the applicant was informed by notice and was given five days time which he had received on 24.5.2000 and the enquiry was concluded before the expiry of 5 days' time given by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, we are of the considered view that the applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity of defending his case in the inquiry and we are inclined to quash the appellate order dated 1.3.2002, Disciplinary Authority's order 11.10.2000 and the inquiry report.
19. We have discussed that the Enquiry Officer did not take steps for securing the presence of Defence Assistant, nominated by the applicant.
The applicant could not cross-examine the witnesses. We have also discussed that though the Enquiry Officer had informed the applicant by giving notice for submitting the documents etc., within 5 days from the receipt of notice which was served on the applicant on 24.5.2000 and concluded the enquiry on 26.5.2000. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the enquiry report, the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are required to be quashed and set aside. The applicant was removed from the service on the basis of the report of Enquiry Officer. In the case of State of Punjab and Ors v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, JT 1996(5) SC 403, the Apex Court held that "It is now well settled law that when the enquiry was found to be faulty, it could not be proper to direct reinstatement with consequential benefits. Matter requires to be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law. Pending enquiry, the delinquent must be deemed to be under suspension. The consequential benefits would depend upon the result of the enquiry and order passed thereon." As per the ratio in Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy's case (supra) the applicant be deemed to be under suspension, pending finalisation of the enquiry. The consequential benefits would depend upon the result upon the enquiry and order passed thereon.
20. The applicant filed M.P. No. 133/04 for issuing notice to Shri Subash Baila, Jt. General Manager/Admn. for Perjury under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of IPC. It is apparent that Shri Baila is not an Inquiry Officer in the applicant's case. The Inquiry Officer was appointed to look into the charges levelled against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of inquiry submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the applicant guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation and the record imposed the penalty of removal from service which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Shri Baila being the Administrative Officer had no role to play in the inquiry proceedings. He was not directly concerned with the proceedings in question. The submissions whatever made by him in the Sur-rejoinder are based on the documents and the record made available to him. He had no personal knowledge of the applicant. He was functioning in the official capacity as Administrative Officer.
21. Sections 191, 192 of the Indian Penal Code define the offences punishable under Section 193 of IPC. The first paragraph of Section 193 prescribes the punishment for intentionally giving false evidence in judicial proceedings or fabricating of false evidence for the purpose of it being used in judicial proceedings. The second paragraph of the section prescribes the punishment for intentionally giving the false evidence or fabricating the false evidence in any case other than judicial proceedings. "Intention" is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 193 of I.P.C. The false evidence may be said to be given intentionally if the person giving it does so advisedly, knowing it to be false and with the intention of deceiving the Court and of leading it to suppose that which he states is true. In the instant case, Shri Baila cannot be said that he was knowing or had reason to believe that whatever statements made by him are false or he did not believe that the statements made by him are not true. We have mentioned that the submissions made by him in the Surrejoinder are based on the documents on record which were made available to him. It also to be mentioned that the person cannot be said to have committed perjury for having failed to make a reasonable enquiry with regard to the fact that alleged by him to be true. The statements made by Shri Baila cannot be said to be false to his knowledge or believe or which he believes not to be true. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the M.P. is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
22. In view of what is stated above, we hold that the I.Os. report and the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority which was confirmed by the order of the Appellate Authority are required to be quashed and set aside. We order accordingly remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to give adequate opportunity to the charged officer to nominate a Defence Assistant as provided under the rules and to take necessary action to secure his presence during the enquiry. The applicant shall be given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to examine the defence witnesses. The applicant shall co-operate with the Enquiry Officer in the conduct of the enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall be under deemed suspension from the date of removal till the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings as observed in the foregoing paragraphs. The O.A. is disposed of with the above direction.
No order as to costs.