2015 (4) TMI 447 - Tri - Central Excise

Chargesheet against Central Excise Commissioner - CAT declines to interfere - Held that - Such issues at the first instance are to be thrashed out in the departmental proceedings where evidence is to be led, witnesses are to be produced, examined and cross-examined. We are confident that this Tribunal should not usurp the power of the departmental authorities. We at this stage cannot go into the merits of the case as this would amount to creating prejudice in relation to the disciplinary enquiry which is yet to be held. We, therefore, desist from giving any finding regarding the legality/illegality of the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the respondent dismissing the representation of applicant dated 01.02.2014 in compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 28.01.2014. We are also to observe that dismissal of the representation is a reasoned and speaking one and that prima facie no malice appears to be getting established. We have to take note of the fact that since no person has been impleaded in his personal capacity, the allegations regarding malice are also vague. Likewise, all the allegations raised regarding the violation of statute have been dealt with comprehensively by the respondents in their order dated 28.02.2014. Therefore, we see no point at present to interfere with the chargesheet and leave all the issues open to be adjudicated before the departmental proceedings or any future proceedings that may follow. - no merit in the OA and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. - Decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
2. Validity of the chargesheet and procedural propriety.
3. Preliminary enquiry and application of mind by the disciplinary authority.
4. Anonymous complaints and their investigation.
5. Legal grounds for interference by the Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Departmental Proceedings:
The applicant challenged the OM dated 10.09.2013, which initiated departmental proceedings against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charges included allegations of imposing a Naka without legal authority, lifting the nakabandi without proper consultation, delayed action on prohibited plastic pouches, and inconsistencies in statements before the Directorate of Vigilance. These actions were alleged to contravene Rules 3(I)(i), 3(I)(ii), and 3(I)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, indicating a lack of devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.

2. Validity of the Chargesheet and Procedural Propriety:
The applicant argued that the chargesheet was issued without following due process, including the non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs) and a lack of independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal noted that the disciplinary authority had considered the applicant's representation and issued a reasoned order on 28.02.2014, addressing all procedural concerns. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not within its purview to interfere with the chargesheet at this stage, as the allegations need to be examined in a departmental enquiry.

3. Preliminary Enquiry and Application of Mind:
The applicant contended that a preliminary enquiry should have been conducted before initiating disciplinary proceedings and that the disciplinary authority should have independently applied its mind before seeking advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The Tribunal observed that the disciplinary authority had indeed considered the applicant's objections and issued a detailed order, indicating compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's caution against interfering with disciplinary proceedings at an interlocutory stage unless there is clear evidence of malafide or procedural irregularities.

4. Anonymous Complaints and Their Investigation:
The applicant argued that the investigation was based on anonymous complaints, which should not have been entertained. The Tribunal noted that the complaints, although anonymous, contained verifiable facts that justified an investigation. The disciplinary authority had taken these facts into account and proceeded accordingly. The Tribunal found no procedural irregularities in the initiation of the investigation based on these complaints.

5. Legal Grounds for Interference by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India Vs. Upendra Singh and Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana, which established that courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings at an initial stage unless there is clear evidence of lack of jurisdiction, malafide, or serious procedural irregularities. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's objections were primarily factual and should be addressed in the departmental enquiry. The Tribunal emphasized that it should not act as a superior appellate authority and interfere with the merits of the case at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, finding no merit in the applicant's objections to the chargesheet and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal directed the respondents to conclude the enquiry within three months and pass a final order within another three months, subject to the applicant's cooperation. If the applicant does not cooperate, the disciplinary authority may proceed ex-parte. The interim order dated 28.01.2014 was vacated.

← Previous Next →