2018 (1) TMI 1663 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in instituting the departmental proceedings against the petitioners - chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioners on 18/12/2009 nearly 8 years from the date of the incident - satisfactory explanation for delay was produced or not - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has relied upon the brief synopsis and the events mentioned therein while arriving at the finding that the delay is satisfactorily explained. It is further found that in the reply filed by the respondents there is no mention of the details which are set out in the brief synopsis. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the brief synopsis which is at Exh.M to the petitions was tendered after completion of the pleadings and when the arguments were in progress. It is on the basis of the sequence of events and the action taken by the respondents as mentioned in the synopsis but which are not part of the pleadings that the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal could not have relied upon the events mentioned in the synopsis which events were clearly beyond the pleadings or the materials on record. The matter needs to be remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits - Writ Petitions are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings against retired employees of the Ministry of Defence, Canteen Stores Department for delay in chargesheet issuance.

Analysis:
The petitioners, retired employees of the Ministry of Defence, challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding an incident involving the loss of Government stores during transportation in 2002. The petitioners were issued a chargesheet in 2009, nearly 8 years after the incident, leading to the filing of petitions before the Tribunal for quashing the chargesheet due to delay. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions, prompting the petitioners to challenge the decision in the High Court.

The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioners contended that the delay in serving the chargesheet was unexplained and discriminatory as other high-ranking officers were not charged. They also argued that the Tribunal considered a synopsis submitted by the respondents, which was beyond the pleadings and not supported by relevant documents. On the other hand, the respondents justified the delay by citing the chronology of events and actions taken from 2004 until the chargesheet issuance.

The High Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the Tribunal relied on events beyond the pleadings and materials on record, specifically the brief synopsis, to explain the delay. As a result, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court instructed the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings and granted interim relief for a specified period. The High Court partially allowed the writ petitions and made no order as to costs, keeping all contentions on merits open for further consideration.