[2025:RJ-JP:34562-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8762/2023 Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Harphool Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Rampura Road, Mohalla Khetedi, Ward No.9, Shahpura, Jaipur, retired As Telephone Mechanic In The O/o S.d.o.p. (Bsnl) Chomu (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi 2. Chief Vigilance Officer, Bsnl Eastern Court Complex, Janpath, New Delhi 3. Chief General Manager, Telecom BSNL, Rajasthan, Jaipur-I 4. Principal General Manager, Telecom District, Bsnl, Jaipur 5. Deputy General Manager (N.w.d.-Rural), Telephone Exchange Building, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur 6. Inquiry Officer And D.e. (Planning And Cc), Lal Kothi, Bsnl Building, Jaipur-15 7. Sub Divisional Officer, Bsnl, Kaladera Road, Chomu 8. D.e. Rural, Sanganeri Gate, Telephone Building, B.s.n.l. Jaipur-3 9. Mr. Lokesh Gupta, Additional General Manager, Telephone Exchange Building, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur-13 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek, UOI Mr. Neeraj Batra, Adv. with Mr. Ravindra Pal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 29/08/2025 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:34562-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-8762/2023] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the submissions with regard to competence of the authority in issuing the charge-sheet. However, he submits that as there was an interim order passed restraining the respondents from proceedings further, therefore, the respondents could not have proceeded further and concluded the enquiry. The petitioner on account of interim order passed by the Court did not participate and cross- examine the witnesses and the enquiry was held ex-parte. 3. The arguments of Union of India in their defence is only to the fact that the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal restraining them from proceedings further was not received and certified copy of the order came to their knowledge only after the enquiry was over. 4. The fact remains that there is an order passed by the Court not to proceed further till disposal of the representation. The order was passed in the open Court by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 27.09.2013 but has come on record when the certified copy of the order was received by the respondents against the letter dated 20.12.2013. The enquiry was completed on 07.12.2013. 5. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the writ petitioner was unable to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry, therefore, cannot be allowed to be sustained and in these circumstances, we direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry afresh with giving an ample opportunity as per the rules, to the petitioner to participate and cross-examine whereafter the procedure as laid down under the Rules shall be followed and decision shall be taken accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:34562-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-8762/2023] 6. The exercise shall be conducted within a period of four months from today. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal are set aside to the aforesaid extent and the enquiry proceedings which culminated into punishment order are all quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition is allowed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/250