2014 (1) TMI 1347 - HC - Customs

Conviction u/s. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) - Invocation of R.19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Preponderance of probability - Held that - It is true that in departmental enquiry charges could be proved based on principles of preponderance of probabilities and in criminal case as settled by the courts, charge is to be proved beyond doubt and as regard departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is concerned, it is pending at the stage where enquiry officer has submitted its report and as per procedure provided under R.14 of Rules 1965 enquiry officer s report is still to be examined by the disciplinary authority and finding recorded in the enquiry report yet not attained finality and at the same time there is judicial enquiry initiated against the delinquent petitioner and the charges proved beyond doubt and in the instant case charge of corruption was instituted against the petitioner and after regular trial he has been convicted by the competent court of jurisdiction u/S.7, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) vide judgment dt.28.7.2008, however, on appeal being preferred, sentence has been suspended by the Court of Appeal vide order dt.19.8.2008. Suffice it to say that at the stage show cause notice dt.22.8.2013 no suspicion or doubt can be attributed and it is always open for department to examine and take appropriate action what the law contemplates. After going through the judgment impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned tribunal in passing the impugned judgment which may require interference - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Premature filing of original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
3. Justification of invoking Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
4. Legal sustainability of dismissing the original application by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, which deemed the original application premature. The petitioner approached the Tribunal when a show cause notice under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served during the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal held the application premature as the petitioner had the opportunity to raise objections at that stage.

2. The petitioner, an Inspector with the Customs and Central Excise department, faced criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2003, leading to conviction in 2008. Despite a disciplinary enquiry initiated in 2005, no action was taken on the enquiry officer's report. The show cause notice under Rule 19 was served in 2013 post the criminal conviction, prompting the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner argued that the charges in the criminal case were not proven beyond doubt, unlike the departmental enquiry where the charges were not substantiated. The petitioner contended that the delay in serving the show cause notice post-conviction was unjustified, alleging mala fide intentions by the department. However, Rule 19 allows for a deviation from the regular disciplinary procedure in certain cases, providing the competent authority with the power to serve a show cause notice for a final decision.

4. The High Court analyzed the submissions and material on record, emphasizing the difference in standards of proof between departmental enquiries and criminal cases. The Court noted that the petitioner's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was based on charges proven beyond doubt, leading to the suspension of the sentence on appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that at the show cause notice stage, no suspicion or doubt could be attributed, allowing the department to take appropriate action as per the law.

In conclusion, the High Court found no manifest error in the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the writ petition, deeming it devoid of merit.