2021 (12) TMI 1122 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of disciplinary proceedings - delayed issuance of the charge-sheet - Should the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and served immediately preceding his retirement on superannuation, be interdicted and nullified on the ground of delay as well as subsequent acquittal in judicial proceedings? HELD THAT - The petitioner has not specifically argued that issuance of a charge-sheet containing stale charges is arbitrary. However, on facts and in the circumstances, it may not require much application of mind for a sensible person to be inclined to the view that the action complained of is indeed arbitrary. An arbitrary action offends Article 14 and is, thus, void. Since no prejudice is required to be proved for violation of a Fundamental Right, the question of proving prejudice may not arise. However, since issuance of the charge-sheet is not challenged on the ground of arbitrariness, we leave it for a decision in an appropriate case in future as to whether delayed issuance of charge-sheet amounts to arbitrariness in State action and could be nullified on the touchstone of Article 14 without prejudice being proved. Having held that the charge-sheet has been belatedly issued without satisfactory explanation but leaving it aside only for the moment, we now propose to attempt a balancing exercise of the factors for and against the plea that the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings should be the ground for quashing thereof - the factors for quashing the delayed charge-sheet far out-weigh the factors against - the proceedings initiated against the petitioner ought to be laid to rest, meaning thereby that the charge-sheet as well as appointment of the Inquiry Officer may not be carried forward. This course of action would be just and proper, more so in the circumstances that nearly a year s time was taken by the disciplinary authority to appoint the Inquiry Officer and also that in the judicial proceedings the petitioner came out unscathed. The upshot of the discussion on delayed issuance of the charge-sheet dated October 23, 2013 is that there being no satisfactory explanation therefor, the respondents cannot be allowed to proceed with such charge-sheet; thus, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in his claim that the disciplinary proceedings including the charge-sheet dated October 23, 2013 and all further orders in connection therewith ought to be set aside. It is directed that the sealed cover be opened and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee be considered. If the petitioner had been recommended, an order of promotion be issued as Chief Commissioner of Customs and Excise. Such order will take effect from the date the peers of the petitioner were promoted. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of monetary benefit for such promotion, except that his pension shall be calculated based on the pay that he would have last drawn as such Chief Commissioner. Let the order of promotion be issued within a month - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
2. Impact of acquittal in judicial proceedings on disciplinary proceedings.
3. Prejudice caused to the petitioner due to delay.
4. Validity of the charge-sheet issued on the eve of retirement.
5. Entitlement to consequential service benefits.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Delay in Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, citing inordinate delay. The alleged misconduct occurred in July 2000, but the charge-sheet was issued on October 23, 2013, just before the petitioner’s retirement. The court examined the timeline and found significant periods of inactivity and lack of prompt action by the authorities. The court noted that the movement of files and correspondence between various departments for over five years without tangible results did not constitute a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and was merely an excuse, thus warranting the quashing of the charge-sheet.

2. Impact of Acquittal in Judicial Proceedings on Disciplinary Proceedings:
The petitioner was acquitted by the Special (CBI) Court in the criminal case related to the same incident. The court noted that although acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically nullify disciplinary proceedings, the findings of the criminal court, which acquitted the petitioner due to lack of evidence and absence of any wrongdoing, were significant. The court observed that the criminal court’s judgment, which indicated that the petitioner did not commit any offence, should have been considered by the disciplinary authority. The court held that continuing with the disciplinary proceedings after such an acquittal would be unjust.

3. Prejudice Caused to the Petitioner Due to Delay:
The court highlighted that the petitioner suffered prejudice due to the delayed initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The delay prevented the petitioner from being considered for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise. The court noted that the sealed cover procedure was adopted due to pending judicial proceedings, and the petitioner never got to know the fate of the recommendation kept in the sealed cover. This delay and the resultant uncertainty caused significant prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Validity of the Charge-sheet Issued on the Eve of Retirement:
The charge-sheet was issued just two days before the petitioner’s retirement. The court observed that such timing indicated an attempt by the disciplinary authority to circumvent the statutory bar on initiating proceedings against a superannuated officer. The court found that the disciplinary authority’s action lacked diligence and sincerity, further justifying the quashing of the charge-sheet.

5. Entitlement to Consequential Service Benefits:
The court directed that the sealed cover containing the Departmental Promotion Committee's recommendation be opened and considered. If the petitioner was recommended for promotion, an order of promotion should be issued, effective from the date his peers were promoted. The petitioner was entitled to pension calculated based on the pay he would have drawn as Chief Commissioner. The court also directed the release of terminal benefits, including pension, gratuity, and other benefits, with interest at the highest rate offered by nationalized banks for fixed deposits.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge-sheet dated October 23, 2013, due to unexplained and inordinate delay, and directed the authorities to grant the petitioner consequential service benefits, including consideration for promotion and recalculation of pension. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and the need to avoid causing prejudice to employees due to administrative delays.

← Previous Next →