9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-à-vis initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition is devoid of legal merits. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tari as the then Deputy Commissioner failed both in his capacity as a supervising officer and as an assessing/examining officer. He thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and also failed to discharge his duty with devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Thus, he contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i),(ii) and (iii) and Rule 3(2) (i) and (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II Shri Bamin Tari, the then Deputy Commissioner, facilitated the Customs clearance of cheap quality export consignments of the firms controlled by Shri Vinod Kumar Garg and managed by Shri Mudit Kumar Tiwari, for pecuniary gain. Shri Bamin Tari used to receive ₹ 5000/- to ₹ 7000/- pr container for Customs clearance of export consignments of Shri Vinod Kumar Garg. Shri Bamin Tari, the Deputy Commissioner thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and failed to discharge his duty with devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and did not act in his best judgments. He also did not ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of his subordinates dealing with the aforesaid shipping bills. He, thus, contravened t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 1676/2010. Further ground of challenge was that the respondent authorities had deliberately and with malafide intention issued the memo of charges at the time when he was due for promotion to the grade of Commissioner. According to him, the said proceeding had been initiated only to deny promotion benefit on the pretext of pendency of a disciplinary proceeding where the cause of action related to a period which was 12 (twelve) years old. 4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioners herein (Union of India ors.) primarily raised four points. Firstly, penalty had been imposed on Bamin Tari in the de novo proceedings. Second, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after twelve years was a result of a serious exercise involving threadbare examination of the available materials so as to obviate any element of harassment that an innocent may be subjected to and also to ensure that an errant officer is not allowed to go unpunished. Also, the orders in original, which formed part of Annexure-3 to the Charge Memo, originated only in December, 2009. Third, although Bamin Tari had been exonerated by the CBI, he did not get any relief in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the departmental proceedings was due to various complexities and no prejudice had been caused to the charged officer. 7. We have heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned ASGI for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. At the outset it would be apposite to notice the grounds of challenge made to the memorandum of charges before the Tribunal. The statements made in paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the Original Application sets out the case of Bamin Tari, which are reproduced hereunder: 5.2 For that, on the same set of alleged chares, the C.B.I. premier investigating agency of Govt. of India also registered a case on 22.06.2004 under Sec. 120(B), I.P.C., read with Sec.420, 467, 471 I.P.C., read with 7,12,13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by C.B.I. ACU, III, New Delhi. Thereafter, C.B.I. conducted a detailed investigation against the same set of charges, where the present applicant participated and extended his best co-operation with the C.B.I agency, however after taking all relevant evidences in connection with the alleged aforesaid charges, brought against the applicant, the C.B.I. did not find any infi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2009, 23.12.2009 and 23.12.2009. In the said denovo orders Shri Suri, Commissioner, Central Excise imposed penalty upon all the Custom officers including the applicant, ignoring and overlooking the earlier adjudication order passed by Shri Gurban Singh, the then Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication). Being highly aggrieved other Custom officers approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for imposition of penalty upon them by Shri A.P.Suri and challenged the validity of those adjudication order by filing WP(C)No.1676 of 2010 and W.P.(C) 1676/2010, however, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after detailed consideration of the grounds raised in the case of similarly situated employees and also after hearing the arguments of the parties and on perusal of the materials on records was pleased to set aside the adjudication orders imposing penalty upon the other custom officials and the order of the Tribunal dated 18.06.2009. 9. The facts disclosed in the aforesaid paragraphs of the Original Application are not denied by the petitioner herein. It is true that a charge memo is neither a final order nor operates as a disciplinary punishment on a proceedee. The conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iced and relevant extracts reproduced by the Tribunal : (i) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh- [1990(Supp) SCC 738] (ii) P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.,T.N.Housing Board- [(2005)6 SCC 636] 13. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo dated 5.3.2014/7.3.2014 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. 14. The plea of inordinate and unexplained delay as well as prejudice caused to Bamin Tari had been categorically raised which, however, did not receive any satisfactory explanation from the petitioner. Neither any cogent explanation has been made to the satisfaction of this Court. From the facts appearing and respective pleadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
