Union of India vs P.A. Gangadharan

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

This Original Petition is filed seeking the following remedies:

i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P7 and set aside Exhibit P4 order dated 21.11.2011 and Exhibit P7 order dated 12.4.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 296/2011.

ii) Permit the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the enquiry and proceeding by taking its own course within a reasonable time.

iii) Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, AIR Cargo Complex, Karipur, Calicut. On an earlier occasion, O.A.No.905 of 2010 came to be filed pertaining to signatures of the party respondent on some bills of entry in 2006. The said Original Application came to be disposed of as early as on 17.12.2010. This pertains to a charge memo dated 18.6.2009. Though Central Administrative Tribunal, as per order dated 17.12.2010, directed to complete the enquiry on or before 31.3.2011, it was not completed within the said period. When this came to be challenged in O.P(CAT).1626 of 2011, it was dismissed on 24.5.2011, without interfering with the directions of Central Administrative Tribunal. When they were pursuing action pertaining to the charge memo dated 18.6.2009, another charge memo came to be issued on 28.2.2011. This became subject matter of challenge in O.A. No. 296 of 2011, wherein the party respondent sought for supply of copies of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in the charge memo dated 28.2.2011 and also other reliefs with main prayer to quash the charge memo itself on account of enormous delay in issuing the charge memo from the date of alleged misconduct by the respondent. However, there was no quashing of the charge memo. But, there was a specific direction to supply all copies of the documents referred to in the charge memo dated 28.2.2011. The matter came to be disposed of directing the petitioners herein to supply all the documents in accordance with the procedure within 21 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in O.A. No. 296 of 2011. Thereafter the respondent was directed to file his reply within 21 days from the date of receipt of the documents. However, there was further caution and direction that failing supply of documents within the time prescribed by Central Administrative Tribunal, the proceedings shall be dropped. Therefore, there was a definite direction with certainty what the petitioners were expected to do. Unfortunately, in spite of this direction on 21.11.2011, there was no supply of documents as directed. Further, they never questioned the order dated 21.11.2011. Subsequently, they filed two miscellaneous applications, M.A. Nos. 152 and 153 of 2012, seeking extension of time to implement the order of Tribunal dated 21.11.2011 by condoning the delay of 29 days in filing an application to extend the time for supply of documents. This came to be disposed of on 12.4.2012. Now, we are at the fag end of July, 2012. The charge memo is dated 28.2.2011. Almost one year and five months are completed from the date of issuance of charge memo by the petitioners.

Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India strenuously points out the difficulties faced by the department in securing the documents so as to supply the same to comply with the direction of Central Administrative Tribunal.

Reading of the charge memo dated 28.2.2011 indicates, based on the details of the documents, the charge memo was issued pointing out the lapses on the part of the party respondent herein in complying with his duties and responsibilities as Deputy Commissioner. If the charge memo could be issued based on those documents, we fail to understand why first of all there had to be extension of time to supply the documents sought by the respondent, as the authority, who issued the charge memo was expected to look into the matter and then issue the charge memo. Unless the documents were placed before the authority concerned, question of issuance of charge memo would not arise, because there has to be application of mind on verification of facts with reference to the documents, before show cause notice was issued to the party like the present charge memo. We fail to understand, even if the documents were not ready at the time of disposal of O.A. No. 296 of 2011 atleast by the time miscellaneous applications came to be filed, the respondent could have got those documents ready. Further, we fail to understand, even today the documents sought by the party respondent are not ready, as learned Assistant Solicitor General of India seeks two months time to secure these documents and supply to the party respondent, as the documents have to be collected from various units and departments. Taking into consideration all these facts, especially the fact that their inaction ultimately leads to dropping of the proceedings pertaining to O.A.No.905 of 2010, we only conclude that there are serious lapses and inaction to take timely action against the party respondent or the petitioners were not seriously prosecuting the departmental action against the party respondent. The party respondent has retired on 30.6.2011. The learned Members of Central Administrative Tribunal were justified in saying, the applicant-respondent had to undergo the indignation of working under his juniors and was ultimately made to retire on 30.6.2011 without any promotion on account of initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings. The fact remains, they were not keen about prosecuting departmental enquiry and there are serious lapses as stated above.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, there is no genuine or sufficient reason why the petition should be entertained. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.