AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) dt. 17.12.2013 holding that the OA is pre mature as petitioner approached the Tribunal at the stage when show cause notice under R.19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Rules 1965) was served and opportunity to raise objection are available to him under the law. The facts relevant for appreciating the controversy raised in the instant petition are that while the petitioner was working as Inspector, Customs and Central Excise with the respondent department, a criminal prosecution was launched against him u/S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) in the year 2003 and after regular trial, he was convicted u/S. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act vide judgment dt. 28.7.2008 and on appeal being preferred, the Court of Appeal has suspended the sentence vide order dt. 19.8.2008 and indisputably he is facing conviction under the PC Act.
It has come on record that apart from the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, a disciplinary enquiry was also initiated and memorandum along with statement of allegation was served upon the petitioner on 21.3.2005 under R. 14 of the Rules 1965 and after the evidence was led by the parties, the enquiry officer prepared its report, but no action was further taken on the enquiry officer''s report by the disciplinary authority, however, on the basis of conviction by the competent court of jurisdiction under the PC Act, a show cause notice came to be served upon the petitioner under R. 19 of the Rules 1965 dt. 22.8.2013 and at this stage the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing original application (OA) which came to be dismissed vide order impugned.
The main thrust of counsel for petitioner is that in the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, the enquiry officer has submitted its report and the charges were not found proved against him and in a case where departmental enquiry is initiated based on preponderance of probabilities the charge of similar nature has not been proved but to his dismay in a criminal case instituted against the petitioner, he has been convicted under the PC Act where charges have to prove beyond doubt but on appeal being preferred his sentence stands suspended and in these facts & circumstances, the respondent could not be held to be justified invoking R. 19 of the Rules 1965 more so when order of conviction was placed in July 2008 and show cause has been served upon the petitioner in August 2013 almost five years after conviction and it has come on record that his service remain unblemished and it was due to mala fide action of the department and it is very much reflected on screen can always be taken judicial notice by this Court, thus dismissal of his OA by the Tribunal on the ground that it was pre mature is not legally sustainable and further process remains an empty formality.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner and examined the material on record including order of the Tribunal.
It is true that in departmental enquiry charges could be proved based on principles of preponderance of probabilities and in criminal case as settled by the courts, charge is to be proved beyond doubt and as regard departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is concerned, it is pending at the stage where enquiry officer has submitted its report and as per procedure provided under R. 14 of Rules 1965 enquiry officer''s report is still to be examined by the disciplinary authority and finding recorded in the enquiry report yet not attained finality and at the same time there is judicial enquiry initiated against the delinquent petitioner and the charges proved beyond doubt and in the instant case charge of corruption was instituted against the petitioner and after regular trial he has been convicted by the competent court of jurisdiction u/S. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) vide judgment dt. 28.7.2008, however, on appeal being preferred, sentence has been suspended by the Court of Appeal vide order dt. 19.8.2008.
It goes without saying that he is convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as regard R. 19 is concerned, it eliminates the regular procedure of disciplinary enquiry provided under R. 14 and 18 of the Rules 1965 and special provision in certain cases have been provided under R. 19 and the authority competent has served him show cause notice calling explanation for taking final decision in the matter.
In our considered view, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that what is written on the wall can certainly be taken judicial notice by this Court, suffice it to say that at the stage show cause notice dt. 22.8.2013 no suspicion or doubt can be attributed and it is always open for department to examine and take appropriate action what the law contemplates. After going through the judgment impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned tribunal in passing the impugned judgment which may require interference. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.