Bilal Nazki, J. - (1.)Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.)Respondent No.1 was facing charges of misconduct and after an enquiry into three charges the Enquiry Officer found Charge No.1 was proved, Charge No.2 not proved and Charge No.3 partly proved. On the basis of these charges, the Department passed an order of compulsory retirement of respondent No.1. An appeal was filed by respondent No.1,which was also rejected. Thereafter, respondent No.1 went to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.812 of 1994, which was allowed. Hence the writ petition by the petitioners.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of punishment has been set aside by the Tribunal mainly on three grounds and all the three grounds were not available to the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal agreed with the contention of respondent No.1 that the order of punishment was passed by an authority who did not have the power to pass such an order. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that certain documents were supplied to 1st respondent on which the Department was relying, but sufficient time was not granted to him to go through those documents and prepare his defence in cross-examination of witnesses. The Tribunal also found that certain documents were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, which were inherently bad and could not have been relied upon.