Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to set aside the order made in O.A.No.1154 of 2010 dated 18.2.2013, wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai, set aside the order of removal of the first respondent herein from service and ordered to reinstate the first respondent in service with effect from the date of his removal with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances, within a period of four weeks. 2. The case of the first respondent before the Tribunal was as follows: "(i) First respondent entered in service as Assistant Field Officer in the year 1990 in the Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi, and he was posted at several sensitive Border Posts at China and Burma in line with Indian Army and Border Military Forces and according to him, for his good works done, he was given several awards. (ii) On 31.7.1997 when first respondent was working in RAW Headquarters, Signal Centre, New Delhi, the second respondent herein instructed him through TPM to ring up his residence No.552906 and asked to talk to him in office, which the first respondent refused to oblige. Consequently, the second respondent transferred the first respondent on 8.5.1997 and 16.3.1998 to harass him and also said to have instigated his counterpart in Signal Centre Headquarters and at RRC Ghitorni to record an adverse remarks in his ACR. (iii) The first respondent was promoted as Deputy Field Officer and transferred to Radio Propagation Research Station at Minicoy Island, which is categorised as very hard posting place as Category-D, though he had already served in the Border Force from 1990-93, during which period his father died and he could not perform last rites at the time of cremation of the body of his father. Again he was transferred to SMU Satellite Monitoring Unit, Mumbai, by order dated 17.9.1998 and in the year 2001 he was posted to Special Bureau, Chennai. (iv) In the year 2004 the first respondent was recommended for Department transfer to Advisory Committee HQ, New Delhi to post him at SN Patiala for a specific task under the 4th respondent, who was the Deputy Commissioner there. The first respondent requested for change of posting by representations dated 15.4.2004, 20.4.2004 and 21.5.2004 to any other location, other than Patiala. Hence he was transferred to Special Bureau, Leh at Jammu & Kashmir, by order dated 26.5.2004. The first respondent requested for change of posting by representations dated 15.4.2004, 20.4.2004 and 21.5.2004 to any other location, other than Patiala. Hence he was transferred to Special Bureau, Leh at Jammu & Kashmir, by order dated 26.5.2004. According to the first respondent, he and his infant daughter were admitted for severe respiratory problems for acute mountain sickness and he was shifted from Leh to the Headquarters at New Delhi in August, 2004. He was again transferred to Special Bureau, Patiala under the second respondent despite his unwillingness to work under the second respondent. (v) The Joint Secretary, Telecom Monitoring at Headquarters, New Delhi advised him that he was being posted to Patiala for the purpose of carrying out monitoring of military activities of Tamil LTTE target on INMA Satellite Unit Commissioner at Special Bureau, Patiala. The second respondent however, deployed the first respondent to monitor target in Pakistan, where Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Kashmiri languages are spoken. The first respondent did not know the said languages and he was also unable to understand the languages spoken on these target links. Hence he submitted a representation dated 8.12.2004 followed with reminder dated 20.12.2004 and the second respondent continuously harassed him without changing the place of posting. (vi) By memo dated 2.12.2004 the second respondent informed that though he tried to give humane treatment to the first respondent, he is incorrigible and he needs to be referred to Psychologist/Psychiatrist as he is not fit to do any sensitive work involving security of the organisation and he should be treated as a 'Security Hazard' in the department. The first respondent joined in SB Patiala in September, 2004, and within one month he secured 5th position in the Monitoring Merit List among 20 officials, but the 2nd respondent deliberately ignored his merit. Again he secured first position in Monitoring Merit List. Thereafter the second respondent did not allow the first respondent to perform his duties and allotted only six days duties in the entire month of December, 2004. His representation dated 10.10.2004 seeking allotment of duties was not considered. Hence, he was forced to write his grievance on 1.12.2004 mentioning his operational difficulties. His EL and LTC for EL from 22.12.2004 to 1.1.2005 to meet his pregnant wife was not sanctioned and he was not allowed to go on leave. His representation dated 10.10.2004 seeking allotment of duties was not considered. Hence, he was forced to write his grievance on 1.12.2004 mentioning his operational difficulties. His EL and LTC for EL from 22.12.2004 to 1.1.2005 to meet his pregnant wife was not sanctioned and he was not allowed to go on leave. (vii) He was suspended by order dated 5.1.2005 and issued with a charge memo dated 14.2.2005 containing following three charges: "ARTICLE – I That the said Shri S.Natarajan, DFO(Tele), Cabinet Secretariat posted at SB, Patiala with effect from 6.9.2004, while on monitoring duty in the afternoon of 1.12.2004 committed grave misconduct by display of flagrant indisciplined and gross negligence/dereliction of duty by not performing his duty and by making fictitious entries in the log sheets and by manufacturing fake messages which were not passed by the link. He utilized the log sheet meant for making entries regarding link status of target country to write his personal grievances. ARTICLE-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Sh.S.Natarajan, DFO (T) committed grave misconduct in as much as he refused to accept a memo dated 3.12.2004 asking him to explain as to why he did not do any monitoring work, missed important intercepts and made false entry while on monitoring duty on 1.12.2004. He also refused to accept memo dated 9.12.2004. ARTICLE-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning at the aforesaid office, S.Natarajan, DFO(T) committee grave misconduct in as much as he tampered with the attendance register by putting his signatures over the entries made by the Duty Officer. Even after he was advised by the concerned AC (Tele) that he should perform shift duty as per duty roster and came to office as per his whims on 2.12.2004, 3.12.2004 and 8.12.2004. He gave a written intimation on 1.12.2004 that he would not perform shift duty and only come on general shifts." (viii) The first respondent denied the above said charges. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 3.3.2006 holding that all the charges framed against the first respondent were proved. On 22.6.2006 the first respondent was removed from service, against which an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed on 3.11.2006. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 3.3.2006 holding that all the charges framed against the first respondent were proved. On 22.6.2006 the first respondent was removed from service, against which an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed on 3.11.2006. The first respondent filed a revision on 20.8.2006 and in the revision, the orders of the original authority and appellate authority were set aside on 22.3.2007 with a direction to conduct denova enquiry as there were procedural defects in conducting enquiry by not permitting the first respondent to engage a defence Assistant. (ix) Pursuant to the order in revision, an enquiry was conducted by the third respondent herein and according to the first respondent defence Assistant was not permitted to be engaged, even though one Vinod Kumar, former Director (Tele) was willing to assist him as defence Assistant and he was not supplied with crucial documents including Departmental Transfer Advisory Committee, 2004, relevant portions of station diary, monitoring logs, attendance register and vehicle log books of December, 2004. Information sought under RTI Act was also denied. He was not permitted to cross-examine important witnesses, which was pointed out by him in his representation dated 15.10.2007. (x) Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 3.7.2009 holding that all the charges are proved. The first respondent submitted his objection to the enquiry report and without considering the same, by order dated 13.11.2009, again he was removed from service which was challenged in appeal and the appeal was rejected on 22.2.2010. A revision petition was filed on 18.3.2010, which was also rejected on 3.6.2010. (xi) The said orders were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by contending that the first respondent was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the denova enquiry and there is mala fide on the part of the second respondent; that his request to nominate one N.K. Sood, PS to JS as his defence Assistant was turned down; that the first respondent nominated another person, but he did not turned up to assist him in the enquiry; and that there are procedural defects in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the order of removal has to be set aside." 3. The said original application was resisted by the petitioners herein by contending that the first respondent was entrusted with various duties by his immediate superior officers and all his transfers were made on routine basis and adverse remarks made in the ACR are based on their discretionary powers. The EL and LTC were not sanctioned due to inadvertence and are on administrative grounds. Maximum opportunity was given to the first respondent to deny his case, but he could not produce details of defence Assistant till 2007. Copies of 12 documents were sought for, of which 10 were supplied. Out of the nine witnesses decided to be examined by the first respondent, cross examination of CD Sahai and Vijay Tiwathia, the then Secretary (R) and JS (Pers) respectively, were not allowed as they were not directly concerned with the charges framed against him. Some other witnesses also could not be called as the first respondent failed to provide full particulars of their employment. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the rival submissions and took note of non-furnishing of certain crucial documents, including Departmental Transfer Advisory Committee 2004 and relevant portions of Station Diary, Monitoring Logs, Attendance Register and Vehicle Log Books of December, 2004. The Tribunal also noted the conduct of department in not allowing the first respondent to cross-examine the important witnesses when the first respondent was facing serious charges, which may culminate in imposing major penalty, as also denial of reasonable opportunity to the first respondent to defend his case, in not providing defence assistance and applying the judgments of the Supreme Court and having regard to the mala fide allegations made against the second respondent, which was not denied by the second respondent, who was impleaded in his individual capacity, Tribunal factually found that there were mala fides, and considering the action of the second respondent in treating the first respondent as a Psychiatrist, etc., set aside the order of removal with a direction to reinstate him with all benefits. The said order is challenged by the petitioners herein, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the original application before Tribunal. The second respondent herein, who was the 4th respondent in the original application, against whom allegation of mala fides were made, has not chosen to challenge the order of the Tribunal and not chosen to appear before this Court and defend the action of the department. 5. The second respondent herein, who was the 4th respondent in the original application, against whom allegation of mala fides were made, has not chosen to challenge the order of the Tribunal and not chosen to appear before this Court and defend the action of the department. 5. In this writ petition the main contentions raised by the writ petitioners/Department are that the charges having been proved and the Disciplinary Authority having accepted the same and imposed the punishment of removal, which was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the said order of punishment, particularly when the first respondent was entrusted with highly sensitive work, involving lot of monitoring security alerts. It is further contended that the first respondent was supposed to intercept the communications from various sources and give an input to the Department, which is a sensitive job. It is alleged that his attitude during his duty periods and during the conduct of enquiry deserves no sympathy. The second respondent, against whom allegations are made having retired from service, he did not defend himself. The first respondent having been posted in a sensitive Department dealings, with confidential and sensitive information pertaining to the nation, even a small iota of doubt shall not be there to the Department regarding his attitude, calibre, conduct and sincerity, and therefore the order of the Tribunal allowing the original application is liable to be set aside. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition reiterating the mala fide actions of the second respondent and the second respondent made adverse remarks in the ACR, though slain ATS Chief Mumbai, Late Hemand Karkare, who appreciated the first respondent's work, which is recorded in his ACR. Though the second respondent was having previous enmity, the first respondent was again posted at Special Bureau, Patiala under the second respondent, ignoring the advise given by the Joint Secretary, Telecom Monitoring Headquarters, New Delhi to post the first respondent to carry out Monitoring of military activities of Tamil LTTE targets on INMAR Satellite Unit commissioner at Special Bureau, Patiala, the second respondent deployed the first respondent to monitor target in Pakistan, though the first respondent was not aware of local languages spoken in those areas. The first respondent also stated that the enquiry was not conducted properly, which was also found by the revisional authority by setting aside the punishment and ordered denova enquiry. He was not given defence assistance and supplied with the documents sought for and not allowed to cross-examine the department witnesses. The mala fide alleged against the second respondent was not denied either before the Tribunal or before this Court and the CAT was justified in allowing the original application. 7. Mr. R. Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the arguments advanced before the Tribunal and emphasised that the first respondent having been posted in a sensitive post and he having failed to discharge his duties, he was proceeded departmentally and based on the findings rendered, the order of removal was passed, which ought not to have been interfered with by the Tribunal lightly. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the order of removal is to be set aside, the Tribunal was not justified in ordering backwages from the date of removal. 8. Mr. Giridhar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that specific mala fide alleged against the second respondent was not denied either before the Tribunal or before this Court by filing counter affidavit and the Tribunal also gave a factual finding that principle of natural justice has been violated because of non-supply of relevant documents to disprove the allegations, which cause prejudice to the first respondent in defending his case. The learned counsel further submitted that even after remand with a direction to conduct denova enquiry, defence assistance was not given and therefore the Tribunal was right in interfering with the order of removal. 9. We have considered the rival submissions, and perused the documents with reference to the charges framed as well as the order of the Tribunal. 10. The charges framed against the first respondent are extracted above and the crux of the charges is that the first respondent made fictitious entries in the log sheet and manufactured fax messages, which were not passed by the links. It is the contention of the first respondent that he was posted in a place where messages would come in Urdu, Punjabi, Sindi and Kashmiri languages and the first respondent's contention is that he is not well-versed with those languages and he was consistently demanding transfer on that ground. It is the contention of the first respondent that he was posted in a place where messages would come in Urdu, Punjabi, Sindi and Kashmiri languages and the first respondent's contention is that he is not well-versed with those languages and he was consistently demanding transfer on that ground. Further, a specific mala fide is alleged against the second respondent for issuing memo dated 2.12.2004 stating that the second respondent directed to use the equipment for personal use of the second respondent, which was meant for official purpose only, and when he was posted to work under the second respondent he requested not to post him under the control of second respondent and the head office also directed to give some other posting, which establish the allegations of mala fide against the second respondent, which were not denied by the second respondent by filing counter affidavit before the Tribunal. Hence the Tribunal accepted the contention of the first respondent and set aside the order of punishment. 11. The Central Administrative Tribunal also found violation of principles of natural justice as the document sought for by the first respondent were not furnished and also refused to summon the crucial witnesses to be cross-examined and the said denial has caused prejudice to the first respondent in spite of the special request made by the first respondent in disproving the allegations levelled against him, which caused prejudice to the first respondent. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 5 (Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon) and (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha) for arriving at the above conclusion. 12. As no material/counter affidavit is filed to disprove the mala fide allegations levelled against the second respondent, who was impleaded by his name before the Tribunal and he having not chosen to appear before this Court by filing counter affidavit, we are unable to take any other view than the one taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. However, in respect of grant of other benefits we are of the view that from the date of removal i.e, from 13.11.2009 till date of reinstatement, the period is to be treated as on duty for all purposes including incremental benefits, except for backwages. Hence the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. However, in respect of grant of other benefits we are of the view that from the date of removal i.e, from 13.11.2009 till date of reinstatement, the period is to be treated as on duty for all purposes including incremental benefits, except for backwages. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is modified to that extent. 13. The writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18.2.2013 is modified to the above extent. The petitioners are directed to implement this order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.