9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.(C) 4471/2014 filed by Union of India against the judgment dated 6th January, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('CAT') in O.A. No.1011/2013 (Ritu Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors). 3. The aforesaid O.A. was filed by the Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, Respondent in W.P.(C) 4471/2014, challenging the Memorandum of Charges ('MoC') dated 4th December, 2012 issued to her. Ms. Ritu Chaudhary at the relevant time was working as an Inspector in the Central Excise and Customs. The charges pertained to the period between 1st May, 2004 and 31st December, 2004. 4. The MoC consisted of three Articles of Charge, all of which alluded to misconduct in contravention of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The charges may be summarized as under: (i) Article-I: The charge was that the Respondent had failed to carry out a proper examination of imported goods comprising fine quality paper of more than 70 GSM which attracted the basic customs duty of 10%, but which were mis-declared as Newsprint/LWC paper carrying only 5% duty, causing revenue loss. (ii) Article II: The charge was that Respondent's name appeared in a diary seized from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of this Court dated 23rd September, 2013 in W.P.(C) 4245/2014 (Union of India v. Hari Singh). 9. The CAT in the impugned order quashed the MoC dated 4th December, 2012 on the following grounds: i) There was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings ii) The Disciplinary Authority is relying upon ten documents, including copies of a diary seized by the DRI and statements of Sanjay Sharma and Utpal Gupta recorded by the DRI, etc. However, "not a single witness has been listed to prove those charges". When disciplinary proceedings are initiated after an inordinate delay witnesses at the relevant time may not be available. iii) In absence of witnesses, if an Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges have been proved, "such finding can only be termed as perverse and cannot be accepted". iv) As held by the Supreme Court in para 14 of its decision in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors 2009 (2) SCC 570, documentary evidence is required to be proved not merely by producing documents but by examining the witnesses. 10. In the other connected matters, the CAT by separate orders quashed the disciplinary pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person". 14. Rule 14 (4) also envisages serving upon the Government servant the copy of the Articles of Charge which would include "the list of documents and witnesses by which each Articles of Charge is proposed to be sustained". 15. The following observations in LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491 are relevant in this context: "20. Thus, the question that arises, for consideration is whether in absence of any oral evidence having been tendered by the appellants, and especially in absence of putting their own defence to the respondent during his cross examination in the Court, what is the effect of documents filed by appellants and marked as Exhibits. 21. Despite our persistent requests made to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect MoCs, the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, would be effectively directing a wasteful exercise to be undertaken, which would end up being invalidated on obvious grounds. 18. In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to agree that in the facts and circumstances at hand, it was impermissible for the CAT to intervene even at the stage of issuance of the MoC/show cause notice. 19. It is fairly well-settled that an inordinate unexplained delay itself causes prejudice to an accused employee. In each of the present cases there was no valid explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating the preliminary enquiry. 20. This Court has recently in its order dated 27th November, 2019 in W.P.(C) 4450/2017 (Virender Singh Chankot v. Union of India) quashed the disciplinary proceedings on similar grounds of unexplained delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570 where it was observed as under: "10. Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
