Thus, the charge levelled against the respondent was that he failed to maintain integrity and exhibited a companyduct which is unbecoming of a government servant.
The directions given by CAT in the aforesaid proceedings, however, have numberbearing on the companytroversy involved herein.
In the present appeal, we are companycerned with the legality or otherwise of the order passed by CAT on 5th February, 2009 in O.A. No.
He requested for supply of certain documents.
In due companyrse, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed.
The aforesaid order of CAT was challenged, by way of Writ Petition Civil No.
By the aforesaid order, CAT quashed the charge sheet dated 7th/8th September, 2005 issued against the respondent on the ground that there was numberhing on record to show that the Finance Minister approved the charge sheet.
In these proceedings, the respondents claimed that the charge sheet dated 7th/8th September, 2005 is without jurisdiction, therefore, liable to be quashed, as the charge memo had number been approved by the Finance Minister.
The said charge sheet was issued on the allegation that in 2003 the respondent was alleged to have approached one Chartered Accountant in Chennai for securing his transfer to Mumbai by offering bribe to the P.A. to the then Minister of State Revenue .
We may also numberice here that prior to filing of the aforesaid O.A., the respondent had already approached CAT twice firstly, seeking direction s to the Union of India to supply all the documents relied upon in companynection with the charge sheet issued against him.
During the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, the respondents filed O.A. No.800 of 2008.
6348 of 2011 Union of India Ors.
By order dated 28th July 2009, which has been impugned before this companyrt, the Delhi High Court dismissed the said writ petition.
800 of 2008.
On 7th/8th September, 2005, whilst working on the aforesaid post, Mr. Gopinath respondent No.1 was served with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 hereinafter referred to as CCS CCA Rules .
Secondly, seeking a direction to the appellant for timely companypletion of the departmental proceedings against him.
10452 of 2009, before the Delhi High Court.
The respondent submitted his reply to the allegations wherein he denied the charges levelled against him.
