2021 (5) TMI 766 - HC - Indian Laws

Bribe - validity of order whereby the tribunal directed the respondents to take final decision qua departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent no.1 original applicant without delay and to complete the entire exercise before 31.03.2019 - HELD THAT - It is the say of the petitioner that Chief Vigilance in a Circular dated 17.12.2012 states that all disciplinary proceedings in which the disciplinary authorities propose to exonerate or drop of charges, the consultation at second stage would continue to be made to the CVC by the concerned administrative authorities. This circulation also provides that all such cases where the disciplinary authority proposes to take any action which is at variance with the Commissioner's first stage advice would continue to be referred to the Commissioner for obtaining second stage advice - It emerges that the Directorate General of Vigilance, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi vide communication dated 28.08.2018 directed that second stage advice be kept pending till the final decision of appeal before the High Court. Noticing the development in the interregnum and also considering the fair direction on the part of the CAT to the respondent authority, even otherwise, the Court finds nothing meritorious in the application, however, with the subsequent development, the matter has become infructuous and deserves to be dismissed and disposed of. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and validity of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding departmental proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, directing the completion of departmental proceedings against the respondent no.1 before 31.03.2019. The respondent no.1, a Superintendent of Customs, was acquitted in a criminal case but faced departmental proceedings. The Inquiry Officer found the allegations unproven, pending appeal. The petitioner argued that the decision is linked to another pending appeal, citing circulars on disciplinary proceedings and second-stage advice. The Directorate General of Vigilance directed to keep second-stage advice pending until the appeal's conclusion. The respondent filed an application before CAT, leading to the current petition before the High Court.

The High Court issued notice on 29.03.2019, and during the proceedings, a communication from the Joint Commissioner (Vigilance) recommended dropping charges against all three officers involved, including the respondent. The communication highlighted the senior most Disciplinary Authority's role and the need for further action. The petitioner's counsel noted this development, stating that the proposal is pending with the Hon'ble President due to multiple officers involved. The Court acknowledged this development and the CAT's fair direction to the respondent authority. Considering the subsequent developments and the matter becoming infructuous, the Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it accordingly.

Overall, the High Court disposed of the petition, noting the subsequent developments and the completion of the departmental proceedings as per the recommendation to drop charges against the officers involved. The Court discharged the rule, concluding the matter.