16.In these circumstances, the second respondent ought to have framed charge sheet. In fact, even at the first instance, the second respondent ought to have framed charge sheet, thereafter only the Enquiry Officer should have been appointed, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even after remand, the second respondent failed to frame charge sheet. Further, another enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that charge Nos.3,4,5, 9 and 10 were proved vide his report dated 09.03.1996. The petitioner gave his further explanation on the report of the Enquiry Officer on 16.03.1996. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 28.03.1996 on the eve of his retirement dated 31.03.1996. By an another dated 28.03.1996, he was not permitted to retire from service. While so, after a lapse of five years, the impugned order in G.O.(3D) No.70, Environment and Forests Department, dated 05.11.2002 was passed by the first respondent imposing the punishment of recovery of Rs.30,163/- from DCRG and cut in pension at the rate of Rs.30/- per month for two years.
