ORDER 1. Hem Chand, respondent No. 2, a member of Indian Police Service of West Bengal Cadre was posted as Executive Director (Vigilance) under Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. On certain charges, he was suspended and order of his suspension was passed on 19.9.1992 (Annexure 1) by the Director, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, in contemplation of departmental proceeding against him. Respondent No. 2 challenged order of suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide Original Application No. 487 of 1992, which was dismissed for default on 11.12.1992 and SLP No. 1557 of 1994 filed in the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 21.1.1994. In the meantime on 9.3.1994, enquiry officer was appointed and subsequently on 10.10.1994 another person was replaced as enquiry officer and the preliminary hearing was held. Respondent No. 2 did not participate in the said enquiry. 2. It appears that respondent No. 2 filed O.A. No. 1052 of 1994 before the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, at Delhi, challenging the memorandum of charges dated 9.12.1992 served on him, which was dismissed as not maintainable, keeping in view the order passed by the Supreme Court on 21.1.1994 in O.A. No. 427 of 1992 directing the enquiry to be concluded within six months. Even thereafter, respondent No. 2 did not participate in the enquiry and preferred SLP No. 3723 of 1995 before the Supreme Court which was ultimately withdrawn on 24.2.1995. 3. Respondent No. 2 thereafter on 25.2.1995 filed a petition before the enquiry officer to fix a date and time for inspection of files/documents relating to enquiry and also requested to supply relevant documents when the said enquiry had already concluded and its report was already submitted on 13.1.1995 itself. 4. It further appears that on 8.3.1995 a copy of report of the enquiry officer was served on respondent No. 2 mentioning therein that Government was in the process of taking view on the findings of the report and he was requested to reply, if he had any thing to say in the matter. 5. By Telex Message dated 27.3.1995 respondent No. 2 asked for legible copy of the enquiry report, list of documents exhibited and list of witnesses examined. Charges were sent to him along with letter-dated 6.4.1995, Annexure F to the counter affidavit and were received by him on 15.4.1995. 6. 5. By Telex Message dated 27.3.1995 respondent No. 2 asked for legible copy of the enquiry report, list of documents exhibited and list of witnesses examined. Charges were sent to him along with letter-dated 6.4.1995, Annexure F to the counter affidavit and were received by him on 15.4.1995. 6. On 24th May 1995, Ministry of Coal sent letter to respondent No. 2 that necessary documents were also sent to him and he was requested to send reply, if any, by 12.6.1995. 7. On 6.6.1995 respondent No. 2 sent another Telex Message, Annexure H to the counter affidavit, to the Ministry of Coal that his reply was ready, but due to unavoidable difficulties he was unable to despatch the same and for that wanted two weeks more time. By communication-dated 12.6.1995, period to file reply was extended from 12.6.1995 to 16.6.1995 but respondent No. 2 did not file any reply. It was on 12.5.1997, when he filed a detailed representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, after the said Ministry requested him to furnish representation, if he desired, against the aforesaid enquiry report. 8. Thereafter on 12.12.1997 order of compulsory retirement of respondent No. 2 was passed. The said order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, at Patna in O.A. No. 517 of 1998 and was allowed by impugned order dated 5.7.2001. Order of compulsory retirement of respondent No. 2 was set aside and it was observed that order of his suspension dated 19.9.1992 has come in force and direction was given to hold a departmental proceeding afresh after giving full opportunity to the applicant/respondent No. 2 to test the materials on which the alleged charges were sought to be sustained and to adequately defend himself. It was also observed that hearing of OA No. 517 of 1998 was confined to preliminary issue whether facts and circumstances on record warranted disciplinary enquiry to be held exparte and not on merit. It was also observed that hearing of OA No. 517 of 1998 was confined to preliminary issue whether facts and circumstances on record warranted disciplinary enquiry to be held exparte and not on merit. In this regard it was observed that pursuant to extension granted by the Supreme Court to conclude the enquiry till 31.3.1995, the enquiry officer concluded it on 13.1.1995 itself and respondent No. 2 did not participate in the enquiry while seeking remedy one or the other way either before the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal or even taking the matter before the Supreme Court from time to time and, ultimately, did surrender himself to participate in the enquiry. In this regard, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the relevant events when the Apex Court on 21.1.1994 before the enquiry had begun, directed the department to conclude the said enquiry within six months. Instead of participating in the said enquiry, ignoring the direction of the Apex Court for conclusion of the enquiry on merit, respondent No. 2 chose to move the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal again in the year 1994 and went on pursuing the same till it was dismissed on 5th September, 1994, with an observation that in view of Supreme Courts direction dated 21.1.1994 it was not maintainable. 9. In such circumstance, in our opinion, there was no justification in the stand of respondent No. 2 that while pursuing the proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Apex Court, he could not participate in the enquiry. It is not a case where either the charges were not served on him or he had no information about initiation of departmental proceeding or enquiry in contemplation of the said proceeding. He was well aware of initiation as well as continuance of such enquiry, but did not participate therein and in the words of the Tribunal "surrendered" before the enquiry officer only after the enquiry had already concluded one month earlier. 10. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order dated 5.7.2001, whereby enquiry in contemplation of the departmental proceeding has to be initiated afresh after giving full opportunity to respondent No. 2 to adduce evidence which amounts to reopen the entire enquiry at the instance of respondent No. 2 to which he was neither entitled in law nor in equity. It was because of failure on the part of respondent No. 2 to reply to the charges or to appear before the enquiry officer. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the order of compulsory retirement of respondent No. 2 in this. Writ petition. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna to hear the parties and dispose of O.A. No. 517 of 1998 on its own merit on the basis of materials available on record and in accordance with law. 11. This Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations/directions. No costs.