2015 (8) TMI 491 - SC - Central Excise

Violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - violation of the principle of natural justice - Reinstatement of wages - Inspection of premises with search authorization - Held that - Having regard to the charges framed against the officer, the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of charges proved against him. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner submits out that the matter should be sent back to the Disciplinary Authority to go into the aspect of proportionality. However, having regard to the fact that the litigations have been going on for the last eleven years, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of justice to give a quietus to the whole issue. - reinstatement without backwages and with a recorded censure would be the just and proper punishment. - Appeal disposed of.

Issues:
Violation of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Proportionality of punishment imposed - Principle of natural justice in conducting domestic enquiry - Reduction of back wages by High Court - Lengthy litigation period.

Violation of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964:
The respondent was accused of violating Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by inspecting premises without proper authorization while working as an Inspector of Central Excise. The respondent claimed to have visited after informing his superior officer. The Central Administrative Tribunal reinstated the respondent with 50% back wages due to a violation of the principle of natural justice in the domestic enquiry. The High Court later reduced the back wages to 25%.

Proportionality of Punishment Imposed:
The Additional Solicitor General argued that the respondent's admission of the unauthorized visit due to inexperience should allow the Disciplinary Authority to impose a suitable punishment without being hindered by technicalities. However, the Supreme Court found the punishment imposed was not proportionate to the gravity of the proven charges against the officer. The Court declined to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority due to the prolonged litigation period of eleven years, opting to settle the issue in the interest of justice.

Principle of Natural Justice in Conducting Domestic Enquiry:
The Central Administrative Tribunal had noted a violation of the principle of natural justice in conducting the domestic enquiry, leading to the direction for reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, decided to modify the order by reinstating the respondent without back wages and with a recorded censure as a just and proper punishment.

Reduction of Back Wages by High Court:
The High Court had reduced the back wages awarded to the respondent from 50% to 25%. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the respondent's admission of the unauthorized visit, found the punishment disproportionate to the charges proved. Consequently, the Court modified the order to reinstate the respondent without back wages and with a recorded censure, settling the matter to bring closure to the lengthy litigation period.

Lengthy Litigation Period:
Considering the extended duration of the legal proceedings spanning over eleven years, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to conclude the matter in the interest of justice. By deciding on a just and proper punishment of reinstatement without back wages and a recorded censure, the Court aimed to bring finality to the issue. The special leave petition was thus disposed of in accordance with the modified order.

← Previous Next →