JUDGMENT : V. Sivagnanam, J. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.05.2021 made in O.A.No.993/2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and consequently allow the O.A.) 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 28.05.2021 in O.A.No.993 of 2013. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-Mr. Bala Soudarssanane retired from Indian Army and thereafter he joined in the service of JIPMER on 12.06.1997 as Licence Officer. Thereafter, he got promotion as Professor and functioned as Head of the Department at the relevant time. On 08.10.2010, a charge memo with certain allegations against the petitioner was issued. He challenged the said charge memo in O.A.No.1265 of 2010 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 08.04.2011. Against which he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9615 of 2011, before this Court, which was also dismissed on 29.07.2012, by directing the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry within three months. Since the petitioner has challenged the charge memo, issued against him, he neither submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Officer nor participated in the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer set the petitioner as exparte and proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. After completion of enquiry he submitted his report on 25.02.2012, alleging that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and the copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner. Even, thereafter, the petitioner did not submit any representation with regard to enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report passed the order on 01.06.2012, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected on 01.06.2013. The same was also challenged by filing the Original Application in O.A.No.993 of 2013. Which was dismissed on 28.05.2021. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. He would further contended that there was no full and fair enquiry into the charges against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. The same was also challenged by filing the Original Application in O.A.No.993 of 2013. Which was dismissed on 28.05.2021. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. He would further contended that there was no full and fair enquiry into the charges against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner requested the enquiry officer to furnish the documents to prove him as innocent with regard to the charges levelled against him. But the enquiry officer, without furnishing the document directed the petitioner to appear before him and sought relevancy of the documents for the enquiry and thereafter, he passed exparte order. The punishment order dated 01.06.2012 received by the petitioner without the signature of the members. However, the said order was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, which was not communicated to the petitioner immediately. The Tribunal without considering any points raised by the petitioner dismissed his application, on the ground that he had not participated in the enquiry proceedings, despite an opportunity was given to him. The Tribunal had not appreciated the fact that the petitioner by challenging the charge memo went upto Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed on 21.09.2011. 4. During the course of the litigations, the petitioner was under the impression that since the charge memo was challenged, there is no necessity for him to appear before the enquiry officer. The Tribunal was erred in holding that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity to give his reply and he orally instructed the enquiry officer not to proceed with the enquiry proceedings by letter dated 05.06.2011. The SLP was dismissed on 21.09.2011. The petitioner requested the enquiry officer to furnish the documents relied by the Management. The same was furnished to him at the end of September 2011. The enquiry Officer by his letter dated 15.10.2011 stated that it was not feasible for him to decide the defence witnesses and additional documents are required from the petitioner for defending the charges against him. Further, the petitioner was directed to furnish the list of witnesses and list of additional documents along with the relevancy to the charges. However, he was set as exparte on 14.10.2011 by the enquiry officer and violated the principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner was directed to furnish the list of witnesses and list of additional documents along with the relevancy to the charges. However, he was set as exparte on 14.10.2011 by the enquiry officer and violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also failed to consider the aspect and dismissed the OA and reiterated other grounds raised in the grounds of writ petition, and thus pleaded to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in 993 of 2011. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. We have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the petitioner and the grounds raised in the grounds of this petition. 7. The admitted facts are, the petitioner, after his retirement from Indian Army, joined the service of JIPMER on 12.06.1997. Then he became the Professor and Head of the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, during 2009 and 2010. For his failure in discharging his duty as HoD of P& SM Department, a charge memo was issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) Rules 1965 on 08.10.2010, wherein the following charges were levelled:- (i) Intentionally and systematically resorted to various actions which have virtually paralyzed the department. (ii) He made baseless allegations against the Dean and the Director and deliberately maligned and tarnished their reputation, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of the JIPMER and these acts were unbecoming of a Government servant. (iii) He misused his position as HOD and pressurized junior faculty members of his department to give depositions in a criminal case instituted by his against two faculty members of the Department of Pharmacology and when they refused to do so, he harassed and victimized them. (iv) He wrote letters threatening to go the media with his demands if they were not met by the Institute. 8. Pending disciplinary proceedings, he was placed under suspension on 08.10.2010. The charge memo dated 08.10.2010 was challenged in O.A.No.1265 of 2010 before the Tribunal and it was dismissed on 08.04.2011. Thereupon, he filed the W.P.Nos.9615 of 2011 before this Court, and the same was also dismissed on 29.07.2011. Against the order of dismissal, he preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. 9. The charge memo dated 08.10.2010 was challenged in O.A.No.1265 of 2010 before the Tribunal and it was dismissed on 08.04.2011. Thereupon, he filed the W.P.Nos.9615 of 2011 before this Court, and the same was also dismissed on 29.07.2011. Against the order of dismissal, he preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the charges, but requested the disciplinary authority to furnish the documents which are relied on by the Management. The same was furnished to him in the month of September 2011. Since the petitioner has not participated in the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer set the petitioner as exparte and the exparte order came to be passed on 14.10.2011. Thereafter, on 25.02.2012, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding that the above said four charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. A copy thereon was furnished to the petitioner. But, even after receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner did not submit any representation with regard to the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. On accepting the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on 01.06.2011. Thereafter, he filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was also dismissed on 01.06.2013. Assailing the said order, he preferred an Original Petition in O.A.No.993 of 2013, which was also failed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court, with this writ petition. 10. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner did not care to participate in the disciplinary proceedings by his act of defiance and negligence. Further, the petitioner in his Original Petition, filed before the CAT, in paragraph No.4.9 pleaded that he was under the bonafide impression that it was not appropriate to participate in the enquiry, when the matter was subjudised and he was requested for postponement of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:- “4.9.The applicant states that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry. The applicant was under the bonafide impression that it was not proper to participate in the enquiry when the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court. He requested for the postponement of the enquiry and since the enquiry officer proceeded with the same, he did not participate.” 11. The applicant was under the bonafide impression that it was not proper to participate in the enquiry when the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court. He requested for the postponement of the enquiry and since the enquiry officer proceeded with the same, he did not participate.” 11. Further, it is the admitted fact that the enquiry proceedings were not stayed by any order of the Tribunal or Court. In such circumstances, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to record the findings and sent the report to the Disciplinary Authority. After receipt of the report, the Disciplinary Authority had issued copy of the same to the petitioner. But the petitioner did not file any representation before the Disciplinary Authority, thereby the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. 12. The materials available on record indicates the fact that the petitioner was not participated in the enquiry proceedings. However, he requested the Enquiry Officer for postponement of enquiry, without having any stay order from the competent forum. In the absence of any stay order from the Tribunal or from the Court, the Enquiry Officer, in our view, justified and proceeded to act upon the materials placed before him. Once the petitioner has expressed his desire, not to take part in the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, that Officer was entitled to proceed exparte and to act upon the materials placed before him. The enquiry made by the Enquiry Officer cannot therefore be challenged either on the ground of interference or incompleteness. 13. We think that no procedural illegalities were committed in conducting the enquiry and the approval by the Disciplinary Authority, in imposing the punishment. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.05.2021 in O.A.No.993 of 2013 and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.