Harvinder Singh Bawa vs Union of India and Others

Badar Durrez Ahmed

This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.07.2011 and 20.09.2011 passed in O.A. No. 1301/2011 and R.A. No. 311/2011, respectively, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. By virtue of the order dated 21.07.2011, the petitioner''s Original Application challenging the dismissal order as well as the appellate authority''s order was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Review Application filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed by the Tribunal by the said order dated 20.09.2011. The petitioner was working as an Inspector (Customs) at the Foreign Post Office, Delhi. A criminal case had been registered against him which culminated in the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent upon the conviction of the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 22.09.2008 in connection with the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. This, ultimately, resulted in the dismissal order dated 18.09.2009 which was passed by the Joint Commissioner (Preventive & Vigilance). The appellate authority also confirmed the dismissal order on 15.02.2010. The review was also dismissed on 19.01.2011.

Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid Original Application which, as mentioned above, also came to be dismissed. The point urged before the Tribunal and the main point before us was that the Joint Commissioner (P&V) was not competent to issue the dismissal order dated 18.09.2009. A plea had been taken by the petitioner that the post of Inspector had been re-classified as a Group "B" non-gazetted post with effect from 11.12.2003 and, therefore, the Joint Commissioner was not the competent authority but it was only the Commissioner who was competent to issue the dismissal order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before us a letter dated 24.10.2007 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs which carried the subject:- Re-classification of the post of Inspector (C. Ex), Inspector(PO), Inspector (Examiner) under CBEC. In the said letter, it was stated as under:-

"In continuation of Board''s order of even no. dated 11.12.2003(copy enclosed for ready reference) on the subject cited above, it is to inform that as per DOP&T''s instructions/notification So. No. 332(E) dated 20.04.1998, the post of Inspector (C. Ex), Inspector (PO) and Inspector (Examiner) under CBEC, in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500/- is re-classified as Group "B" Non-Gazetted w.e.f. 11.12.2003. Necessary changes in the Recruitment Rules of Inspector (C.Ex.), Inspector (PO), Inspector (Examiner) under CBEC are being made by the Board in consultation with DOP&T and Union Public Service Commission."

We find that this very letter had also been placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had made the following observations:-

"12. The applicant has also drawn our attention to a letter dated 24.10.2007 written by the Under Secretary in the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue to all the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs, which deals with re-classification of the post of Inspector (C.Ex.), Inspector (PO), Inspector (Examiner) under CBEC in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 11.12.2003 as Group "B" non-gazetted. It was stipulated in this letter that necessary changes in the recruitment rules of Inspector (C.Ex.) Inspector (PO), Inspector (Examiner) under CBEC are being made by the Board in consultation with DOP&T and Union Public Service Commission. As already stated above, the applicant has not shown any notification whereby the post of Inspector was in fact reclassified as Group "B" post by the competent authority. As such, the aforementioned letter dated 24.10.2007 produced at the time of hearing will not come to the rescue of the applicant and no positive finding can be given based on this letter without receiving the stand of the respondents. Thus, the contention raised by the applicant that he has been dismissed by the lower authority and not by the appointing authority needs to be rejected."

(underlining added)

We can observe from the aforesaid extract that the petitioner had not shown any notification whereby the post of Inspector had, in fact, been re-classified as Group "B" post by the competent authority. We had allowed the petitioner''s prayer on the previous occasion to place before us any document to show that prior to the date of dismissal, i.e., 18.09.2009, the post of Inspector had, in fact, been re-classified as a Group "B" non-Gazetted post. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any such document. As such, it cannot be said that the Joint Commissioner (P&V) did not have the authority to issue the dismissal order. Consequently, agreeing with the decision of the Tribunal, we see no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.