THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.30585 of 2011 Between: Bobjee G.Kurien, S/o George Kurien Hyderabad. . .Petitioner And 1.Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, New Delhi and another. .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.30585 of 2011 ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, dated 02.08.2011 in R.A.No.28 of 2011 in O.A.No.1284 of 2010. The writ petitioner entered service of the Union of India as Inspector of Income Tax in 1970 and after intervening promotions retired from service on 31.08.2007, as Joint Commissioner, Income Tax. The Central Government issued a charge memo dated 24.01.2007 alleging certain irregularities in the official conduct of the petitioner during his tenure of service i.e., during 2003-2005, while working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9 (1) at Hyderabad. The charge memo along with the Memorandum of Articles of charges was furnished to the writ petitioner. On 14.02.2007 the petitioner responded to the charge memo and requested that he be provided with copies of all documents listed in Annexure-III to the charge memo, while denying the charges. He received the documents listed in Annexure-III namely the documents which the department proposes to rely during the course of the departmental inquiry. On 21.05.2008 the petitioner addressed the Commissioner of Income Tax to provide certain other documents, 5 in number. On 27.06.2008 the Inquiry authority directed the Prosecuting Officer to provide the petitioner the copies of the documents. The Prosecuting Officer provided the petitioner only with the 5th set of documents sought by him, but declined to provide the other four species of documents. After some exchange of correspondence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1284 of 2010 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 10.06.2011 directing the respondents to furnish all the relevant documents listed in Annexure-III to the charge memo, before commencing the inquiry and making it clear that if such documents are not furnished to the applicant/writ petitioner, the inquiry is liable to be pronounced invalid. In R.A.No.28 of 2011 the writ petitioner sought review of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.06.2011 (disposing of the O.A.) complaining that documents (other than those listed in Annexure- III to the charge memo) were not furnished to him despite persistent demand. In rejecting the application for review, the Tribunal rightly concluded that it cannot at this point of time go into the question whether the documents other than those enumerated in Annexure-III ought to be furnished and pronounce on the effect of not furnishing. The Tribunal clearly observed that guidelines were issued under instruction No.23 of the Government of India’s instructions under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules regarding supply of copies of documents and affording access to official records to a charged officer. Those are the aspects that should be considered by the disciplinary authority/inquiry authority, observed the Tribunal. This Court discerns no warrant for interference in the order of the Tribunal. If the petitioner is aggrieved that any document, even relevant for his defence in the disciplinary inquiry is not furnished to him, it is open to him to make an appropriate representation to the disciplinary authority and it is for the disciplinary authority to rule on such representation. If a relevant document either for presentation of the departmental case or for the defence of the charged employee is not furnished to the charged employee despite request, such non-furnishing of document or the failure to make available such document for perusal, by providing access thereto may be fatal to the inquiry. These are all matters to be considered after conclusion of the departmental inquiry and final order thereon is passed. As the charge memo has been issued as early as on 24.01.2007 nearly 5 years ago, any further protraction of the disciplinary inquiry is prejudicial both to the public interest and to the interests of the petitioner as well. For the reasons above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The respondents are directed to expeditiously conclude the inquiry, preferably within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if necessary by conducting the inquiry on day-to-day basis. No order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM _______________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 19.12.2011 Gsn