2017 (2) TMI 529 - HC - Central Excise

Gross negligence - Valuation - Classification - whether the department can be allowed to take different stands qua different charged officers when identical chargesheets have been issued against them - Held that - the respondent had raised the objection of delay at the first opportunity available at the time of filing his statement of defence and stated that with the passage of time his memory would fail in recollection of the relevant materials and lack of files and note-sheets of a period of about 15 years prior would create serious prejudice to his rights and the preparation of a statement of defence. Having regard to the facts of the case in hand and the settled position of law and also taking into consideration that the department agreed to accept the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ms.Naini against whom an identical charge-sheet was issued who had a greater role to play and also having regard to the fact that ultimately the department was able to recover the entire amount we find no grounds to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. Alleged negligence and dereliction of duty by the respondent.
3. Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings.
4. Comparison with a similar case involving another officer, Ms. Naini Jayaseelan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Order Passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal:
The writ petition challenges the Tribunal's order dated 19.04.2011, which allowed the respondent's application. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set in the case of Ms. Naini Jayaseelan, where similar charges were quashed due to inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings.

2. Alleged Negligence and Dereliction of Duty by the Respondent:
The respondent, during his tenure as Commissioner of Excise, approved a lower excise duty for "Blue Stratos After Shave Lotion," treating it as a medicinal product instead of a toilet product. This resulted in a significant loss to the exchequer. The negligence was admitted by the respondent in his written defense, where he claimed reliance on the judgment of the then ACE, Shri Badri. The Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty, leading to the filing of the application before the Tribunal.

3. Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings:
The disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were initiated after a delay of 17 years. The petitioners argued that the delay was justified due to the complexity of the case and the need to await the outcome of legal issues raised by Ms. Naini. However, the Tribunal and the respondent contended that the delay was unexplained and prejudicial, causing a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend.

The petitioners cited several judgments to argue that delay does not necessarily vitiate disciplinary proceedings if satisfactorily explained. However, the Tribunal found the delay in this case to be unreasonable and unexplained, leading to prejudice against the respondent.

4. Comparison with a Similar Case Involving Another Officer, Ms. Naini Jayaseelan:
The respondent's case was compared to that of Ms. Naini, who faced identical charges. The Tribunal had quashed the charges against Ms. Naini due to inordinate delay, and the department did not challenge this decision, allowing it to attain finality. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning to the respondent's case, noting that the charges and circumstances were identical.

The Tribunal emphasized that the department could not take different stands for different officers facing identical charges. The delay in the respondent's case was even longer than in Ms. Naini's case, and the respondent's role was considered to be on a lesser footing. The Tribunal concluded that the delay caused significant prejudice to the respondent, making it difficult for him to defend himself due to the lapse of time and loss of relevant records.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no grounds to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings was unreasonable and prejudicial, and the department's acceptance of the Tribunal's decision in Ms. Naini's case further supported the respondent's position. The judgment underscores the importance of timely disciplinary actions and the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

← Previous Next →