JUDGMENT : Amrita Sinha, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed at the instance of the Administration challenging two orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’. First is the order passed in the Original Application filed by the respondent employee quashing the inquiry report and the penalty order, second is the order dismissing the application for review of the said order filed by the administration. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) The respondent, an employee of the Department of Tourism, A & N Administration, was working in the office of the Director. A complaint was lodged against him for misappropriation of Government money and on contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceeding against him he was put under suspension. (b) A separate criminal case under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also initiated against him. (c) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the respondent was charge-sheeted on 30th October, 2015. (d) An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. (e) As the criminal case and the disciplinary proceeding was continuing simultaneously, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 10/AN/2017 with a prayer for deferring the disciplinary proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case as the charges in respect of the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case were the same. (f) The respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal approached the High Court by filing WP.CT/189/2017. The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 16th June, 2017 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a request to the learned Special Judge trying the criminal case to conclude the trial and pass an order and sentence, if warranted, within fifteen months from date. (g) The Hon’ble Court made it very clear that the inquiry and the disciplinary proceeding shall continue without any hindrance but hearing should only be concluded after the criminal case is disposed of. The said direction was passed relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case the criminal case results in an acquittal or honourable acquittal it may have some repercussions on the departmental proceedings. (h) In compliance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the employer proceeded with the inquiry in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (h) In compliance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the employer proceeded with the inquiry in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (i) On 30th November, 2018 the respondent submitted a representation before the disciplinary authority clearly mentioning that the inquiry officer fixed date of departmental inquiry on 01st June, 2017, 14th June, 2017, 20th July, 2017, 04th August, 20017, 16th August, 2017, 24th August, 2017, 25th September, 2017, 06th November, 2017, 28th December, 2017, 18th January, 2018, 14th March, 20418, 04th June, 2018, 02nd July, 2018, 06th November, 2018, 13th November, 2018, 16th November, 2018 and 21st November, 2018 and alleged that even after hearing conducted on so many dates, the departmental inquiry was yet to be concluded and was kept pending by the Inquiry Officer. (j) In the aforesaid representation the respondent highlighted the various circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission for timely completion of the disciplinary proceeding and as the disciplinary proceeding could not be concluded within the mandatory time limit prescribed by the Central Vigilance Commission, the respondent prayed for dropping the said proceeding. (k) As the criminal case could not be concluded within the time limit specified by the Hon’ble High Court, accordingly, an interlocutory application was filed by the Administration being CAN No. 125 of 2018 in WP.CT/189/2017. By order dated 12th December, 2018 the Court was pleased to extend the time for a further period of twelve months for concluding the pending criminal trial. (l) The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal with OA 351/1948/2018 praying for a direction upon the authority to drop the disciplinary proceeding in consonance with the Circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. (m) The Tribunal by order dated 07th January, 2019 disposed of the original application directing the authority to consider the aforesaid representation of the respondent and to pass a reasoned and speaking order as per rules. The Tribunal made it clear that till the consideration of the representation, no coercive action will be taken against the applicant and if the representation was disposed of then the result thereof be communicated. The Tribunal made it clear that till the consideration of the representation, no coercive action will be taken against the applicant and if the representation was disposed of then the result thereof be communicated. (n) By a communication dated 26th March, 2019 copy of the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer dated 18th January, 2019 was forwarded to the respondent and he was given an opportunity to make representation or file submission before the disciplinary authority within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the communication. (o) On receipt of report of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent served a legal notice of contempt upon the Administration and also filed an application for contempt before the Hon’ble High Court being CPAN/012/2019 in WP.CT/189/2017 alleging violation of the direction passed by the Court on 16th June, 2017. It has been submitted that on receipt of the notice of contempt, the authority did not proceed further with the matter. (p) The trial ultimately concluded and judgment was delivered by the criminal Court on 20th April, 2021. The respondent was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment and also pay fine under the offences punishable both under Section 409 of the IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (q) After the judgment was delivered in the criminal case on 20th April, 2021, the Administration by a communication dated 30th July, 2021 forwarded the memorandum of the Administration dated 27th July, 2021 giving an opportunity to the respondent to submit representation or submission. The respondent submitted written representation dated 13th August, 2021 upon the inquiry report. (r) The representation of the respondent dated 13th August, 2021 was considered and after taking into account all facts, figures and evidences available on record, the disciplinary authority by order dated 04th February, 2022 imposed major penalty of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the government. (r) The representation of the respondent dated 13th August, 2021 was considered and after taking into account all facts, figures and evidences available on record, the disciplinary authority by order dated 04th February, 2022 imposed major penalty of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the government. (s) The respondent challenged the inquiry report dated 18th January, 2019 and the order of dismissal dated 04th February, 2022 by filing original application before the Tribunal being OA No. 351/372/2022 which stood disposed of by order dated 21st July, 2022 by quashing the inquiry report as well as the penalty order and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to act strictly in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court upon due notice to the applicant. (t) The Tribunal was of the opinion that the authority misread or misinterpreted the order of the Hon’ble High Court either deliberately or in ignorance of the implication of the words ‘conclusion of hearing’, as according to the Tribunal the expression ‘conclusion of hearing’ ought not to be construed as ‘conclusion of proceedings’. The Tribunal opined that, essentially, a conclusion of a department proceeding is by a final order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of inquiry report, whereas, ‘conclusion of hearing’ is with the Presiding Officer filing his brief. The Tribunal held that the Administration allowed the hearing to be concluded with preparation of an inquiry report long before conclusion of the criminal case which was clear violation of the Hon’ble High Court’s order. (u) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order an application for review was filed by the Administration. The Tribunal by order dated 31st May, 2023 dismissed the review application. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the Administration challenging both the orders passed by the Tribunal. 3. According to the Administration, all steps to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceeding have been taken strictly in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The employee was given reasonable opportunity of hearing at all stages. The employee duly filed his representation against the report filed by the Inquiry Officer and the order of dismissal was passed after consideration of the representation filed by the employee. Remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority will further delay the disciplinary proceeding. 4. The employee was given reasonable opportunity of hearing at all stages. The employee duly filed his representation against the report filed by the Inquiry Officer and the order of dismissal was passed after consideration of the representation filed by the employee. Remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority will further delay the disciplinary proceeding. 4. Learned advocate representing the petitioner has relied upon the Rules of 1965 relating to the procedure for imposing penalties. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , paragraph nos. 23 to 26. 5. Prayer has been made for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal on 21st July, 2022 and 31st May, 2023. 6. Per contra, learned advocate representing the respondent employee vehemently opposes the submission of the Administration. It has been submitted that there has been gross violation of the principle of natural justice by not granting opportunity of hearing to the employee prior to preparation and submission of the inquiry report and also prior to passing the order of penalty. 7. It has been submitted that the Administration failed to comply the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1965 prior to passing the major penalty of dismissal from service. 8. It has been contended that the employee raised allegation of bias against the Inquiry Officer and the grievance of the employee was not redressed by the employer. 9. It has been argued that the employee was not in a position to adduce evidence properly as the trial in the criminal case was pending. The authority ought to have acted in accordance with the restriction imposed by the Hon’ble High Court and ought not to have proceeded with hearing of the disciplinary proceeding pending conclusion of the criminal trial. 10. The respondent alleges that he is highly prejudiced by the inquiry report and the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and prays for setting aside the two. 11. We have heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials on record. 12. 10. The respondent alleges that he is highly prejudiced by the inquiry report and the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and prays for setting aside the two. 11. We have heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials on record. 12. The article of charges against the employee are as follows:- “STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGES Article-I That the said Shri Pradeep Chanda while functioning as Higher Grade Clerk/Head Clerk in the office of Directorate of Tourism, A & N Administration, Port Blair and posted at the Account Section, Directorate of Tourism as Cashier during the period from March, 2006 to March, 2013, committed gross manipulations in the office record and embezzled Govt. Money (cash revenue) amounting to Rs. 51,42,530/-(Rupees Fifty one lakh forty two thousand five hundred thirty only) by fraudulently & dishonestly making forgery and false entry in the Cash Book and Challan Register. Shri Pradeep Chanda by his above act exhibited lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant thereby contravening Rules 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964. Article-II That the said Shri Pradeep Chanda, Head Clerk while functioning as a Cashier in the Accounts Section of Directorate of Tourism committed gross manipulation in Cash Books pertaining to Directorate of Tourism by making forgery and false entry and deliberately misplaced the challans from the records and misled the Officer/DDO during that juncture and embezzled Government Revenue/Cash amounting to Rs.51,42,530/-(Rupees Fifty one lakh, forty two thousand five hundred and thirty only). Shri Pradeep Chanda, Head Clerk (U/S) by his above acts has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, there by contravening Rule 3(1) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964”. 13. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the year 2015. From the communication made by the employee on 30th November, 2018, it is evident that he admitted that hearing was conducted on several dates as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 (k) above. Even thereafter hearing took place on 02nd January, 2019, 03rd January, 2019 and 04th January, 2019. 14. The inquiry report reveals that the Presenting Officer was allowed to submit his brief by 10th January, 2019 and the employee was allowed to submit his brief by 17th January, 2019. The employee participated in the hearing duly assisted by the Defence Assistant. Even thereafter hearing took place on 02nd January, 2019, 03rd January, 2019 and 04th January, 2019. 14. The inquiry report reveals that the Presenting Officer was allowed to submit his brief by 10th January, 2019 and the employee was allowed to submit his brief by 17th January, 2019. The employee participated in the hearing duly assisted by the Defence Assistant. 15. On 21st November, 2018 the employee filed representation alleging bias of the Inquiry Officer. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, the Inquiry Officer kept the inquiry proceeding in abeyance and forwarded the said allegation of bias to the Chief Secretary being the disciplinary authority vide communication dated 26th November, 2018. The allegation was considered and rejected by the authority with direction to conclude the inquiry within four weeks as the proceeding was already delayed. On receipt of the aforesaid direction, the inquiry proceeding which was kept in abeyance stood resumed. 16. On resumption of the inquiry proceeding opportunity was granted to the employee to submit his brief but he neither responded to the communication made nor submitted his brief. The employee also did not challenge the decision of the Administration to continue with the inquiry proceeding by not accepting his allegation of bias. 17. It appears that on one hand, the employee approached the Tribunal praying for dropping the disciplinary proceeding as the same continued for such long period and on the other, the employee deliberately did not submit his brief to the Inquiry Officer despite opportunity granted to him. The employee was completely aware of the fact that the disciplinary proceeding could not have been completed prior to the conclusion of the trial in view of the order passed by the High Court. The employer cannot be singularly blamed for delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. 18. The inquiry report records the deposition of as many as eight witnesses and also takes into consideration the documents placed before the Inquiry Officer. It does not appear that the inquiry report was prepared without granting any opportunity to the respondent employee to put forth his defence. On the contrary, it appears that ample opportunity was given to the employee by the hearing officer to disprove the charges brought against him. 19. The employee appears to take conflicting stands before the Court and before the employer. On the contrary, it appears that ample opportunity was given to the employee by the hearing officer to disprove the charges brought against him. 19. The employee appears to take conflicting stands before the Court and before the employer. He initially approached the Tribunal with a prayer to defer the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that criminal case on the selfsame charges was pending consideration before the criminal court. An order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court clearly recording that the Court was not minded to stay either the disciplinary proceeding or the criminal trial. The Court was pleased to direct the trial court to conclude the proceeding within a stipulated time frame. The Court directed that the inquiry and disciplinary proceeding to be continued without hindrance but the hearing was directed to be concluded after the criminal case is disposed of. 20. The employer accordingly proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding and the respondent employee duly participated in the same. At the fag end of the inquiry, the employee alleged bias and thereafter did not attend the hearings. The Inquiry Officer was left with no other option but to conclude the process of hearing as a time limit was fixed by the Tribunal for conclusion of the same. 21. As the employee deliberately refrained from attending the last lap of the hearing before the Inquiry Officer, he now cannot turn around and allege violation of the principle of natural justice. The employee was duly informed that his allegation of bias was considered and found not tenable. Opportunity was duly granted even at that stage for submission of his brief, but he refused to do so. 22. It is interesting to note that despite being aggrieved by the report of the Inquiry Officer communicated to the employee way back in March, 2019, he did not think it prudent to challenge the same before any forum. Only after the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed in the year 2022, did the employee approach the Tribunal for relief. 23. The Administration even though proceeded with the inquiry but did not conclude the same in view of the restriction imposed by the Hon’ble High Court. The employee is trying to make out a case that the Inquiry Officer ought not to have prepared the inquiry report prior to conclusion of the criminal trial. 23. The Administration even though proceeded with the inquiry but did not conclude the same in view of the restriction imposed by the Hon’ble High Court. The employee is trying to make out a case that the Inquiry Officer ought not to have prepared the inquiry report prior to conclusion of the criminal trial. The employee ought to appreciate that the Court never imposed any bar upon the employer to file the inquiry report and only hearing was directed to be concluded after disposal of the criminal case. The employer rightly fixed the final hearing of the disciplinary proceeding only after the criminal case was disposed of. 24. On a perusal of the documents available on record, the Court is convinced that the allegation of the petitioner that there has been violation of principle of natural justice is absolutely misplaced and factually incorrect. Reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the employee at each and every stage. The employee, as per his convenience, attended the hearing but thereafter backed out casting aspersion on the Inquiry Officer. 25. The voluntary act of the employee in not attending the hearing, despite opportunity being granted, cannot be construed as violation of principle of natural justice. 26. Admittedly, it appears that the employee did not appear before the disciplinary authority after receipt of the inquiry report whereby the employee was given opportunity to file representation before the competent authority if aggrieved by the same. The employee instead of filing reply rushed to the Tribunal challenging the inquiry report. For ends of justice and in line with the law laid down by the Courts that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done, the Court is minded to give one more opportunity to the employee to defend his case. 27. The order of dismissal is, accordingly, set aside. The Court directs the Administration to revisit the proceeding from the stage of forwarding the inquiry report to the employee. It is made clear that the Court does not find any lapse on the part of the Inquiry Officer in preparing his report and, as such, the same is not interfered with. There is no requirement or occasion of granting opportunity of further hearing before the Inquiry Officer. It will be open for the employee to raise all issues apropos the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. 28. There is no requirement or occasion of granting opportunity of further hearing before the Inquiry Officer. It will be open for the employee to raise all issues apropos the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. 28. The disciplinary proceeding is continuing from the year 2015 and conclusion of the same ought not to be delayed any further. The disciplinary authority is directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the employee and conclude the proceeding at the earliest but positively within forty five days from the date of communication of this order. 29. The order passed by the Tribunal quashing the inquiry report is accordingly set aside. The order passed in the application for review becomes inconsequential. 30. The writ petition stands disposed of. 31. No costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. I agree.- Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.