2013 (11) TMI 1658 - SC - Customs

Whether the punishment order could be passed by the disciplinary authority in view of the fact that the charge sheet itself has been quashed by the Tribunal on the ground that it had not been approved by the disciplinary authority and in respect of the same, the matter had come to this Court and as explained hereinabove, has impliedly been decided in favor of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 5.9.2013? Held that - The order dated 31.7.2012 in our humble opinion is nothing but a nullity being in contravention of the final order of the Tribunal which had attained finality. More so, the issue could not have been re-agitated by virtue of the application of the doctrine of res judicata. It was not permissible for the appellants to consider the renewal of the suspension order or to pass a fresh order without challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 1.6.2012 and such an attitude tantamounts to contempt of court and arbitrariness as it is not permissible for the executive to scrutinize the order of the court. It is a settled legal proposition that jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is basically one of conscience. The jurisdiction is plenary and residuary. Therefore, even if the matter has been admitted, there is no requirement of law that court must decide it on each and every issue. The court can revoke the leave as such jurisdiction is required to be exercised only in suitable cases and very sparingly. The law is to be tempered with equity and the court can pass any equitable order considering the facts of a case. In such a situation, conduct of a party is the most relevant factor and in a given case, the court may even refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution for the reason that it is not necessary to exercise such jurisdiction just because it is lawful to do so. The appellants have acted in contravention of the final order passed by the Tribunal dated 1.6.2012 and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellants for passing the order dated 31.7.2012 or any subsequent order. The orders passed by the appellants had been in contravention of not only of the order of the court but also to the office memorandum and statutory rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the suspension order of the respondent.
2. Compliance with the Tribunal's directions.
3. Review and renewal of the suspension order.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions.
5. Application of the doctrine of res judicata.
6. Legal malice and arbitrary exercise of power by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Suspension Order:
The respondent, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was suspended due to pending criminal cases and allegations of disproportionate assets. The suspension was reviewed multiple times, and the continuation of suspension was challenged by the respondent. The Tribunal quashed the suspension orders, and the High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

2. Compliance with the Tribunal's Directions:
The Tribunal had directed the appellants to reconsider the suspension order by taking into account various factors, including the quashing of the chargesheet, recommendations of the Law Ministry, and the status of the criminal proceedings. The Tribunal found that these directions were not complied with in the orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012, leading to their quashing.

3. Review and Renewal of the Suspension Order:
The appellants continued to renew the suspension order despite the Tribunal's quashing and directions. The Special Review Committee (SRC) recommended revocation of suspension, but the competent authority continued the suspension, citing pending appeals and reviews. The Supreme Court found this continuation to be in contravention of the Tribunal's final order, rendering the subsequent suspension orders null and void.

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions:
The Court emphasized that the power of suspension should not be exercised arbitrarily and must be based on reasonable grounds. Suspension is not a punishment but a preventive measure. The Court's role in judicial review is to ensure that the decision-making process is fair and not influenced by irrelevant considerations or procedural impropriety.

5. Application of the Doctrine of Res Judicata:
The Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2011 had attained finality as it was not challenged by the appellants. Therefore, it was not permissible for the appellants to pass any fresh suspension order without ensuring compliance with the Tribunal's directions. The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of the same issue, and the appellants' actions were found to be in violation of this principle.

6. Legal Malice and Arbitrary Exercise of Power:
The Court found that the appellants acted with legal malice by continuing the suspension despite the Tribunal's quashing and directions. The executive's interference without challenging the court order before a superior forum was deemed arbitrary and contemptuous. The appellants' actions were seen as a misuse of power, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suspension orders were invalid and in contravention of the Tribunal's final order. The appellants were found to have acted arbitrarily and with legal malice, and the Court emphasized the importance of compliance with judicial directions and the principles of fair administrative decision-making.