2016 (6) TMI 183 - HC - Indian Laws

Delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the officer - Whether the delay of more than twelve years in initiating the proceedings, that remained unexplained, strikes at the root of the charge memo and the proceedings - Held that - on the alleged irregularities against respondent pertaining to the period April 2002 to February 2003, the memorandum of charge was issued on 5.3.2014/7.3.2014 i.e. at a distance of twelve years. The only explanation rendered by the petitioners is that since initiation of a departmental proceeding is a very serious exercise and involves threadbare examination of the materials available, as such, care has to be taken to ensure that an innocent is not subjected to harassment nor an errant officer escapes punishment because of hasty and scantily deliberated decision in a given case. This explanation to justify the delay is weak, uninspiring and made as a matter of course. No cogent explanation is set forth to give the least benefit of credence to the said explanation. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo is stated to have taken place in 2002-2003. Apparently, the department cannot feign ignorance and say that it came to learn of it only in the year 2014. This is belied by the very fact that the department was alive to the investigations made by CBI and the proceedings before the DRI. It is not comprehended as to why it had taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The delay itself goes to show that the department did not consider the matter as of any serious import affecting the discipline of the department. Here the petitioners have utterly failed to provide sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against respondent. In our view and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh 1990 (4) TMI 286 - Supreme Court Of India and in the case of P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.,T.N.Housing Board 2005 (8) TMI 674 - Supreme Court Of India , as to the effect of inordinate and unexplained delay vis- -vis initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition is devoid of legal merits. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be faulted on any legally tenable grounds. Whether the departmental proceedings be allowed to stand when on the same set of charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances the respondent Bamin Tari was exonerated by statutory authorities - Held that - this writ petition being without merit on the first point itself, no further elaboration is made to discuss and adjudicate on the second point, save and except, that the Apex Court decisions in Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. 1999 (3) TMI 625 - Supreme Court of India and G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat 2006 (5) TMI 509 - SUPREME COUR meets the second point. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings.
2. Impact of prior exoneration by CBI and DRI on the departmental proceedings.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Prejudice caused to the respondent due to the timing of the memo of charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings
The respondent, serving as the Additional Commissioner in the Department of Customs & Central Excise, faced charges issued on 5.3.2014/7.3.2014 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for alleged misconduct during April 2002 to February 2003. The charges included failure to detect overvaluation of export goods and facilitating customs clearance for pecuniary gain. The respondent challenged the memo of charges before the Central Administrative Tribunal, citing an inordinate and unexplained delay of over 12 years. The Tribunal found the delay unjustified and prejudicial, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that such delays are unfair and detrimental to the concerned individual. The petitioners' explanation that the delay was due to a thorough examination of materials was deemed weak and uninspiring. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that the delay itself indicated the department did not consider the matter seriously.

2. Impact of Prior Exoneration by CBI and DRI on the Departmental Proceedings
The respondent argued that the same set of charges had been previously investigated by the CBI, which resulted in a closure report accepted by the Special Judge, CBI, Ambala. Additionally, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had issued a show cause notice, which culminated in the respondent's exoneration by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication). Although a subsequent Commissioner imposed penalties in de novo proceedings, these were set aside by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal and the High Court agreed that the prior exonerations by statutory authorities on the same charges should preclude further departmental proceedings. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, which support this view.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal
The petitioners contended that the Central Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to question the correctness of the charges and could not assume the functions of the disciplinary authority. However, the Tribunal, after an elaborate analysis, allowed the respondent's application, setting aside the memo of charges. The High Court supported the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, stating that the court's role is to prevent injustice, and the Tribunal's intervention was justified given the circumstances.

4. Prejudice Caused to the Respondent Due to the Timing of the Memo of Charges
The respondent claimed that the memo of charges was issued with malafide intent to deny him promotion to the grade of Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the charges were issued when the respondent was due for promotion, further supporting the argument of prejudice. The High Court concurred, noting that the timing of the charges, coupled with the unexplained delay, indicated a deliberate attempt to hinder the respondent's career progression.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's judgment. The court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings was unjustified and prejudicial to the respondent. Additionally, the prior exonerations by the CBI and DRI on the same charges precluded further departmental proceedings. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to intervene was upheld, and the timing of the charges was deemed indicative of malafide intent to deny the respondent's promotion.