WP (C) No. 7974/2008 Page 1 of 4 Unreportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7974/2008 % Decided on : 05.03.2009 SHYOPAT SINGH . . . Petitioner through : Mr. D. R. Gupta, Advocate VERSUS U. O. I & ORS. . . . Respondent through: Mr. R. V. Sinha, Advocate CORAM :- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) During the period July, 1999 to November 2000, certain Afghan nationals smuggled huge quantity of Chinese silk. The matter was invested into by customs department and as per preliminary investigation, it was found that various custom officers were parties to a criminal conspiracy which resulted in the aforesaid smuggling. Matter was referred to CBI which conducted investigation and submitted its report dated 27.4.2004. On the basis of this report, Directorate General of Vigilance and Customs and Central Excise prepared note dated 10.6.2005 which summarizes the rule played by each such officer. Petitioner is one of them. Other persons included one Mr. Ashok Ranwan who was an Inspector in the Central Excise and Customs, Delhi Directorate at that WP (C) No. 7974/2008 Page 2 of 4 time. Mr. Ashok Ranwan was issued charge-sheet for major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules. He challenged initiation of disciplinary proceedings and prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet by filing OA no. 1910/2007. By its detailed judgment dated 25.4.2008 the Tribunal dismissed the said OA. Perusal of that judgment would show that the Tribunal addressed itself the issue as to whether there was any case for judicial interference at that stage of mere charge memo. Taking note of the legal proposition that only in very rare and exceptional circumstances and where it is found that chargesheet was without jurisdiction or served for myriad reasons wholly illegal, there may a case for judicial review. In the said OA of Ashok Ranwan, no case for interference was made out that it was a case of depicting rare and exceptional circumstances. 2. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was also issued memo dated 31.7.2007 under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules on the basis of same report. He also challenged the said charge memo by filing OA no. 1916/2007. This OA has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders dated 30.4.2008. Perusal of the said order would show that the Tribunal has simply followed its earlier judgment dated 25.4.2008 in the case of Ashok Ranwan (supra) observing that the two case are contextual, identical and the contentions raised are also same and therefore, for the detailed reasons given in Ashok Ranwan (supra) OA filed by the petitioner also warranted dismissal. The arguments raised and the facts of his case are not discussed in detail. 3. Challenging the said judgment it is argued that the issue raised by the petitioner was totally different which has been glossed over by the learned Tribunal. In his case, he had referred to the report dated 10.6.2005 of the WP (C) No. 7974/2008 Page 3 of 4 Directorate General of Vigilance wherein following role is attributed to the petitioner: “11. Shri Sheopat Singh, Inspector- The only charge against him is that while working in Preventive, on one occasion on 17.4.2000, Olga was allowed exit whereas she was assessed for less quantity. However, in the absence of any evidence of collusion or conspiracy on his part, there does not appear to be a case for initiation major penalty proceedings against him and only minor penalty proceedings would be appropriate.” 4. The submission is that as per the investigation carried out by the CBI, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, only charge against him was that while working in Preventive, on one occasion only, i.e., on 17.4.2000, he allowed exit to one Olga. He further points out that even as per the aforesaid preliminary findings of the CBI, Olga was assessed for less quantity and the assessment was not the job of the petitioner. It is also specifically recorded that there was no evidence against the petitioner of any collusion or conspiracy and thus he was not a part of any conspiracy either. On this basis, the recommendation of even the Directorate was that since the allegations against the petitioner was that on one occasion he allowed said Olga an exit on this basis only minor penalty proceedings were recommended. 5. Submission of the petitioner therefore predicated on the aforesaid material was that even when there was no case of conspiracy made out against the petitioner as per their own report and case of minor penalty was recommended, the petitioner could not have been issued charge sheet for major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 CCS, CCA. He, thus, submits that in the OA filed by the petitioner primary contention was that there was no reason to issue major WP (C) No. 7974/2008 Page 4 of 4 penalty charge sheet and such an action was clearly arbitrary, irrational and without application of mind. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that prima facie the case of the petitioner does not appear to be at par with that of Ashok Ranwan (supra) and therefore, mechanically relying upon the judgment given in AR Ranwan (supra) and without discussing aforesaid distinguishing features which are highlighted by the petitioner, his OA could not have been dismissed. 7. We may hasten to add that we are not commenting upon the merits of the OA filed by the petitioner. What we emphasize is that the contention raised by the petitioner merited due consideration and independent decision thereon should have been taken instead of dismissing his OA by simply following earlier judgment in Ashok Ranwan (supra). For this reason alone, we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and remit back the case back to the Tribunal for decision on merits. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 9th April, 2009. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE March 05, 2009 rb