IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 O.P.(CAT).No. 1626 of 2011(Z) --------------------------------------------- O.A.No.905/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOAD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS RESPONDENT: ----------------------- P.A.GANGADHARAN, S/O.LATE P.V.APPUKUTTY PILLAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, KOCHI, RESIDING AT 'SAAKETHAM', THEKKUMMURI,TIRUR-676 705. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- O.P.(CAT) No.1626 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. This Original Petition is filed by the Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs impugning the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by which petitioners have been directed to take a decision on the explanation submitted by the respondent herein in response to the memorandum of charges levelled against him and also to complete the enquiry on or before March 31, 2011. The Tribunal further held that, if the petitioners could not complete the enquiry on or before the instant date, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent shall stand dropped. 2. It is on record that memorandum of charges was issued against the respondent while he was working as Deputy Commissioner at the Air Cargo Complex, Calicut on certain alleged acts of omissions and commissions. The gravamen of the charge against the respondent was that on September 16, 2006 while he was on duty he had failed to check and verify certain O.P.(CAT) No.1626 of 2011 2 bills of entry in respect of goods that were being imported. It is not necessary to refer to the various articles of charges levelled against the respondent at this stage. The fact remained that the Department slept over the matter for nearly three years, without initiating any action against him. Ultimately in June 2009 a memorandum of charges was issued against the respondent for his alleged misconduct and omissions and commissions. A reply to the show cause notice was sent by the respondent in August 2009 itself. But still the Department did not take any further steps in the matter. In the meanwhile, it appears that, the respondent was denied promotion which fell due. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal in October 2010 praying for a direction to his employer to complete the disciplinary proceedings sought to be initiated against him within one month or in the alternative to promote him to the level of Joint Commissioner, ignoring the memorandum of charges issued against him. 3. The Department contended before the Tribunal that there was no willful delay or laches on its part in completing the proceedings against the respondent. Delay occurred only O.P.(CAT) No.1626 of 2011 3 because the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules and regularizations was such that it required considerable time for completing the legal formalities. The Department therefore informed the Tribunal that a minimum of one year's time would be required to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned, since there were large number of other cases pending consideration before the Board. 4. The Tribunal after considering the inordinate delay that had already been caused and also the above response from the Department, took the view that there was no justification on the part of the Department in taking shelter under the so called “procedural delay”. It was in the above circumstances that the Tribunal directed to complete the enquiry, on or before March 31, 2011. The Tribunal further held that if the enquiry could not be completed on or before March 31, 2011 all further action pursuant to the memorandum of charges shall stand dropped. 5. Sri. John Varghese learned Senior standing counsel who appears for the Central Board of Excise and Customs submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is wholly unjustified. He points out that various stages are contemplated for completing O.P.(CAT) No.1626 of 2011 4 the disciplinary proceedings, which will require reasonable time at every stage. He further submits that petitioner no.2 has already been appointed as Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the Enquiry report, it has to be presented before the Director General of Vigilance for his consent. Thereafter the matter has to be placed before the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Director General. Still further, the matter has to be considered by the Ministry of Finance regarding the question whether or not it has to be referred to the Union Public Service Commission. On receipt of the advice of the UPSC, final orders will have to be passed, after getting the approval from the Finance Ministry. Thus it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be completed in a jiffy. 6. It may at once be noticed that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order on December 17, 2010. This Original Petition has been filed in the second week of May, 2011. It is true that the petitioners have a case that an Enquiry Officer has already been appointed. There is no clue as to when this appointment was made and also whether the Officer has taken any steps to start the enquiry. Significantly, no order of O.P.(CAT) No.1626 of 2011 5 appointment has been produced before us. In fact, if the petitioners knew that the enquiry could not have been completed on or before March 31, 2011, they ought to have approached the Tribunal for appropriate directions or at least for enlargement of time. Similarly if the petitioners thought that the direction issued by the Tribunal was a little harsh on them, the impugned order ought to been challenged at the earliest point of time. This Original Petition has been filed nearly five months after the impugned order was passed. There is absolutely no explanation even as to why no steps were taken in this regard. In any view of the matter we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore the the Original Petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc