9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 delaye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 2000, when the petitioner was working as Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) in the Export Promotion Commissionerate, New Customs House, Mumbai. The said incident of July 10, 2000 related to a party, M/s. Pacific International Exporters, which was allegedly allowed to successfully claim excess drawback contrary to law. In 2002, the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Acting on an audit report, the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai, (hereafter 'the ACB/CBI", for short) registered a First Information Report (hereafter "FIR", for short) dated December 31, 2004. One Hemant Kothikar, Deputy Commissioner, Customs Frere Basin, Dock, Mumbai, was named as the prime accused in such FIR. Incidentally, the petitioner was not named as an accused therein. However, in course of conducting investigation, certain materials were collected and on the basis thereof, the ACB/CBI submitted an internal report in September, 2007 recommending prosecution against nine persons including the petitioner. In September 2007 itself, the CBI had forwarded all the relevant documents to the Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted September 10, 2009 and May 3, 2010, respectively. By a letter dated May 19, 2010, the DGV wrote to the Board that the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai (hereafter, "the CoC (G)", for short) by his letter dated January 1, 2009 had forwarded the draft charge-sheet along with authenticated copies of the relied upon documents to the AD-V Section of the Board. The Board by its letter dated September 9, 2010 requested the CoC (G) to furnish another set of the draft charge-sheet and authenticated copies of the relied upon documents. In pursuance thereof, the CoC (G) on September 23, 2009 furnished a copy of the draft charge-sheet. Insofar as authenticated copies of the relied upon documents are concerned, it was advised that the same may be obtained directly from the ACB/CBI; hence, on November 2, 2010, the Board requested the Superintendent of Police, ACB/CBI, Mumbai, (hereafter, "the SP", for short) to furnish certified copies of the relied upon documents. Three reminders, dated February 9, 2011, March 9, 2011 and March 29, 2011, were sent. Pursuant thereto, the SP replied that all the relied upon documents together with the report of the ACB/CBI had been supplied to the Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted his final reply to the chargesheet on December 30, 2013. There, he raised objection to delayed initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It took the respondents almost a year to appoint an Inquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer, who were appointed on December 18, 2014. In February 2015, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) by presenting an original application bearing O.A. No.99 of 2015. Therein the charge-sheet dated October 23, 2013 issued to him was challenged. By an interim order dated May 5, 2015, the Tribunal granted stay of further proceedings of inquiry till the disposal of the original application. The respondents in the original application did not prefer to challenge the order dated May 5, 2015; instead, they elected to contest the original application by filing an affidavit-in-reply and surrejoinder. During the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, the Special (CBI) Court delivered its judgment on January 4, 2018 acquitting all the accused persons of the offences with which they had been charged. Although the Special (CBI) Court recorded that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original application on the grounds assigned therein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The main prayers read as follows: "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for record and proceedings leading to the passing of the judgment dated 21st February, 2020 passed by the CAT, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.99 of 2015 (Exhibit A) and after examining the legality and propriety of the same this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said judgment; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for record and proceedings leading to the issue of the Departmental chargesheet dated 23rd October, 2013 (Exhibit B) issued by the Respondents and after examining the legality and propriety of the same this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said departmental chargesheet; (c) in pursuance of prayer clauses (a) and (b) above this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant the Petitioner all consequential service benefits including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case while obtaining interim orders and as contained in his pleadings, that when the criminal proceedings were on identical facts, documents and witnesses, the disciplinary proceedings should be postponed. Therefore, it is quite plain that the applicant cannot be permitted to stand on both stools by arguing on the one hand, that the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed and then claiming the benefits of quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay. The Applicant has not, at any stage of the proceedings, explained how he has been prejudiced in the matter. An argument could be made that he had undergone mental agony but all the matters, as he himself submits, the facts, documents and witnesses were all materials before the Criminal Court which disposed of the matter as late as in 2018. As also argued by the respondents, it is only the applicant who has benefited by the long delay of 20 years from the date of incident to this date by way of a promotion in 2002 prior to detection of the offence and unhindered retirement in 2013. Therefore, in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court ruling in N. Radhakishan (supra) that the norm is to allow continuation of the disciplinary p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to another desk of the officers who had the occasion to deal with the same. Movement of file from one desk to another and/or exchange of correspondence, it was argued, cannot be cited as an explanation for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet. Office Memorandum dated May 23, 2000 issued by the CVC was referred to which provides that memorandum of charges is required to be issued within a month from the date of receipt of advice from the CVC; and in the instant case the advice having been received on February 4, 2008, by no stretch of imagination could the delay in issuing the charge-sheet on October 23, 2013 be held to be reasonable and fair. The very fact that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner immediately prior to his retirement on superannuation, coupled with the fact that more than a year since then was spent in appointing the Inquiry Officer, clearly betrays the attempt of the disciplinary authority to wriggle out of the restrictions to initiate proceedings against a superannuated officer, which would have stood in the way once the petitioner retired from service on superannuation. In any event, since the petitioner did not seek quashing of the disciplinary proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith interest @ 18% per annum. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 12. Mr. Shetty, learned advocate for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition. According to him, the judgment of the Tribunal is well reasoned and well-written and the same having dealt with each and every point that was raised on behalf of the petitioner, it does not warrant any interference. 13. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, Mr. Shetty sought to contend that satisfactory explanation had been proffered as to why the charge-sheet could not be issued and served on the petitioner earlier. The explanation having been found satisfactory by the Tribunal on facts and the view taken being a plausible view, he contended that it was not for the writ court to interfere with such findings of fact. According to him, the decisions referred to by the Tribunal were squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, this Court ought to uphold the judgment. 14. Referring to the verdict of the criminal court, Mr. Shetty contended that law is well settled that exoneration of the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt does not preclude the discip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on January 23, 2008, the Board had recommended departmental action, inter alia, against the petitioner. Even if we discount the period between July, 2000 and January 23, 2008 (since the petitioner's involvement allegedly came to light only in September, 2007 and the Board recommended departmental action in January, 2008), the period between January 23, 2008 and October 23, 2013, i.e., exactly a period of 5 (five) years and 9 (nine) months, has to be identified as the relevant period; and it would require examination as to whether the delay in not issuing the charge-sheet within a reasonable period from January 23, 2008 has been satisfactorily explained. Or, in other words, did the respondents place materials to satisfy the Tribunal/this Court that during the relevant period, they acted with diligence as well as promptitude or were indulging in sheer wastage of time by engaging in unnecessary correspondence and/or pushing the file from one desk to the other. This is essential because if no cogent explanation were furnished, the said exercise of engaging in correspondence and/or pushing the file would be nothing but just an 'excuse' and it could lead to an order not permitting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. (emphasis ours) 22. Thus, after having held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time, the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer." (emphasis ours) 25. The decision in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, is also one which dealt with delay in initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. One of the grounds for the Court to interfere was that the Tribunal as also the high court failed to take into consideration that disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 6 (six) years and they continued for a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Masilamani, reported in 2013 6 530, and Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515. In the latter decision, the Court observed as follows: "14. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is dehors the limits of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a chargesheet or show-cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question must be carefully examined taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of the charges involved therein. The court has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so the court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers and come to the conclusion which is just and proper considering the circumstances involved. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siderable length of time has passed since such detection, it would be unfair to the charged officer to proceed against him on the basis of stale charges. b. Disciplinary proceedings may not be interdicted at the stage of charge-sheet and should be allowed to proceed according to the relevant rules since a charge-sheet does not affect any legal right of the delinquent unless, of course, it suffers from an invalidity that strikes at the root of the proceedings. c. If there is delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings by drawing up charges against the delinquent and such proceedings are challenged, the disciplinary authority is under an obligation to explain the reasons for the delay; and, depending upon the worth of such reasons, the Court may proceed to decide one way or the other. d. There cannot be any exact measurement of the length of delay by reference to years to fall into the category of 'too long a delay', and what would amount to the same has to be decided depending upon the facts of a given case. e. Should the delay be found to be too long and unexplained, that would definitely have a bearing on the seriousness of the disciplinary authority to pursue the char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y provide that on attaining a specified age, a public servant has to demit office and retire from service. It is generally felt that after reaching a particular age, a public servant becomes incapable to discharge the job entrusted to him for health reasons and, therefore, needs to be replaced by younger blood. Even though a public servant is mentally alert and physically fit to discharge his duty and age is merely a number for him, yet, he has to retire and make way for others to fill the breach. 34. Given this background, let us consider a situation where a public servant who has reached the December years of his service career and waiting in the departure lounge to exit service is served with a charge-sheet concerning incidents which are more than a decade old. Although we do not rule out that there could be just reasons for the delayed initiation of disciplinary proceedings, by reason of his advanced age the charged officer may not be in a position to recollect or recall each single detail when called upon to raise his defence to the charge-sheet. The more complex the charge, the more difficult it could become to recapitulate events that might have led to a particular action w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Neither can there be predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in initiating/concluding the disciplinary proceedings nor can there be any hard and fast rule in that regard. These principles flow from the decisions in Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), N. Radhakishan (supra) and V. Appala Swamy (supra) relied on by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. However, with all the respect and humility at our command, we observe that the said decisions do not throw any light as to when an explanation could amount to a satisfactory explanation. 37. On perusal of all the decisions that we have noted above, we do not consider it to be the requirement of law that the delay of each month or each year has to be explained; however, whatever be the length of delay, the explanation has to be acceptable to the Court. As the Supreme Court has laid down in matters where appeals are carried or applications are filed beyond the period of limitation and condonation of delay is prayed, the length of delay is immaterial. Acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion; sometimes delay of the shortest range may be untenable due to want of an acceptable expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet. Second and third reminders dated September 10, 2009 and May 3, 2010, respectively, followed. Why was the first reminder sent after a year, and why the second and third reminders were separated by 6 (six) months have not been explained. On May 19, 2010, the Board was informed by the DGV that the CoC (G) by his letter dated January 1, 2009 had forwarded the draft charge-sheet along with authenticated copies of the relied upon documents to the AD-V Section of the Board. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that despite having the draft charge-sheet as far back as in January, 2009, request was made on May 19, 2009 for furnishing the draft charge-sheet. Request for furnishing another set of the draft chargesheet and authenticated copies of the relied upon documents was made by the Board to the CoC (G) on September 9, 2009. Pursuant thereto, on September 23, 2010, the CoC (G) furnished a copy of the draft charge-sheet. Since it was advised that the authenticated copies of the relied upon documents may be obtained directly from the ACB/CBI, the Board on November 2, 2010 requested the SP to furnish certified copies of the relied upon documents. Reminders dated February 9, 2011, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said requirement is treated to be directory and failure to draw up the charge-sheet within a month of receipt of the advice of the CVC may not be interdicted only on such ground, we would consider a period of 6 (six) months from receipt of such advice to be a reasonable period within which the charge-sheet should have been drawn up, extendable to a year in exceptional cases. The analogy is drawn looking at the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 415, where the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of an employer to ensure that departmental enquiry initiated against a delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures, as far as possible within six months which may further be extended to six months in certain circumstances. Considering any volume of papers that the disciplinary authority would be required to look into, any period beyond one year is bound to be viewed as unreasonable. Having noticed the turn of events right from the time the police report was filed in 2007, we are inclined to hold that the 'explanation' proffered is really an 'excuse', unworthy of acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined 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. 44. 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 bearing in mind the principle of law laid down in Chaman Lal Goyal (supra). 45. The alleged incident of M/s. Pacific International Exporters being allowed to successfully claim excess drawback, contrary to law, occurred in the year 2000. Keeping this in mind, the factors in favour of the petitioner are: (i) The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st a year after the charge-sheet. (vii) The petitioner did plead in the original application why and how he is likely to be prejudiced if the enquiry were conducted into the stale charges. 46. Now let us trace the factors against the petitioner: (i) Technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of disciplinary proceedings and the same should be allowed to take its own course. (ii) Despite involvement in acts of misconduct in 2000 which went unnoticed, the petitioner was not denied promotion in 2002. (iii) The charge against the petitioner is serious. Deliberate acts or negligence of public servants leading to loss of public revenue has to be dealt with iron hands. (iv) The Tribunal had been approached and interim relief obtained staying disciplinary proceedings on the ground that it was to run parallelly with judicial proceedings and submission of written reply to the charge-sheet would amount to a disclosure of defence, thereby prejudicing his defence at the trial. However, having obtained a stay of the disciplinary proceedings on such ground, the disciplinary proceedings were attacked on different grounds at the time of final hearing of the original applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that it was the petitioner, accused no.3, who had sanctioned the duty drawback in this case. The Court did not stop at that; it went on to record in the next paragraph that even if it is assumed that the petitioner, accused no.3, had sanctioned the duty drawback, he did not commit any wrong in view of legal provision regarding the issuance of duty drawback. There is no indication in the judgment of the witness being won over; rather, to our surprise, Mr. Shetty was heard to submit that disappearance of file S-2 and S-10 is attributable to the petitioner. If indeed that be so, why the petitioner was not proceeded against on such allegation has not been explained. The submission of Mr. Shetty has been raised to be rejected, which we hereby do. Although the Special Court while concluding its judgment may not have expressly said that it is a case of honourable acquittal and, on the contrary, had recorded in the operative part that the charges against the accused including the petitioner had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, we are left to wonder whether the findings (in paragraphs 19 and 20 noted supra) would not bring the case of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is entitled, based on promotion or otherwise, as the case may be, shall be released as early as possible but positively within 3 (three) months of issuance of the order of promotion as above. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest on such unpaid amount at the highest rate that nationalized banks offer for fixed deposits. 51. Writ Petition No. 5764 of 2021 is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. WRIT PETITION NO. 2888 OF 2019 52. Hearing of this writ petition was concluded on October 27, 2021. The order passed while reserving judgment records the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Helekar, learned advocate, that no additional affidavit was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) after O.A.No.184 of 2010 was remanded and that his prayer for extending opportunity to the respondents to file such an affidavit before us stands rejected. Such additional affidavit was the implied requirement of an order of a coordinate Bench of this Court [cor. the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble M.S. Karnik, J.] dated January 24, 2018 while disposing of Writ Petition No.851 of 2013 (being an earlier w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic Officer, Base Depot towards the release of Bank guarantee amounting to ₹ 2,29,100/- against the transporter M/s. Adarsh Parivahan without confirming any dues from the transporter". Vide Article of Charge-III, the petitioner was charged with failing to advise "the concerned staff working under him to monitor the receipt details of trucks with the master register of transporter to confirm receipt of consignment at the consignee depot nor the master register was put up to his superiors. Due to above lapse, non-receipt of consignment at Bareilly Depot could not be noticed. Moreover, the register of the transporter was closed and kept aside at the end of the financial year 2001-02, as the transporter was not awarded any contract for the subsequent year 2002-03, as stated by Shri V.B. Mule himself. There is no transparency in discharging of official duties thereby causing loss to the department". All these acts, according to the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, amounted to negligence in discharge of his assigned duties and exhibited misconduct unbecoming of a Government servant. 54. The charge-sheet was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by presenting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd O.A. No.243 of 2010 are remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. 3. The Tribunal is requested to hear and decide the O.As. as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six months from today. 4. Interim order granted by this Court is continued for a period of 10 weeks from today. 5. The question of grant of interim relief may be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits, if an application is so made. 6. All contentions on merits are kept open. 7. Writ Petitions are partly allowed. 8. Rule is partly made absolute with no order as to costs." (emphasis ours) 55. In view of the aforesaid order of remand, what was expected of the respondents was to file an additional affidavit to place on record the explanation for the delay and not to rely on the excuse of official procedure and non-receipt of concurrence as reasons that delayed initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. As has been noted in the order dated October 27, 2021 passed by us, the respondents did not file any additional affidavit. 56. While the matter stood thus, the Tribunal rather surprisingly [speaking through the same Member (Adminis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the reply affidavit did not disclose satisfactory reasons for delayed issuance of the charge-sheet and that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the synopsis of events, which did not form part of the pleadings, and also since no additional affidavit was filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, we are simply left to wonder how the Tribunal, after remand, could repeat the same mistake of not trying to ascertain whether the reason put forth by the respondents for the delay could be justified on the basis of the materials on record. 59. We have noted from the impugned judgment and order dated March 1, 2019 that the learned advocate for the petitioner had referred to, inter alia, the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Radhakishan (supra), P.V. Mahadevan (supra), M.V. Bijlani (supra) and Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra). 60. Despite such decisions of the Supreme Court being brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it proceeded to hold against the petitioner on the ground that the Court or the Tribunal ought not to interfere at the stage of show-cause or charge-sheet. True, the Court does not ordinarily interfere at the show-cause or charge-sheet stage; however, interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
