IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10435 OF 2000 Between: The Union of India Rep by its Secretary Ministry of Finance Dept of revenue New Delhi. ..... PETITIONER AND Mr. S. Sambasiva Rao S/o. Seshaiah Malladivari Street 1-35-40, Nazerpet, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to may be pleased to issue a direction , order or Writ , more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No.1163 of 1998 on the file of the Central Admionistrative Tribunal , Hyderabad and quash the order Dt: 20-09- 1999 in the said O.A and pass such other order or orders deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1163 of 1998, dated 20-09-1999, which was filed by the respondent herein, S. Sambasiva Rao. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as under: The respondent, who worked as Inspector of Central Excise, retired from service on 31-08-1990 and while in service, he was charge sheeted by the petitioner on 02-07-1986 with the following article of charges: “Article No.1:- That the said Sri S. Sambasiva Rao, Inspector of Central Excise while working in M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited during the period from 30-7-82 to 1-1-86 failed to conduct the checks of comparing the daily production shown in the Cigarette making Machine Production Cards and that of production of Cigarettes as recorded in the R.G.1 Account which resulted in the loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.40,95,32,096-68/-. The above loss of Government revenue was caused due to the gross negligence and dereliction on the part of the Inspector as revealed in the course of investigation conducted by the departmental officers. Article No.2:- During the said period, Sri S. Sambasiva Rao, Inspector of Central Excise failed to obtain the quarterly return of tobacco used and Cigarettes manufactured in Forum Appendix ‘G’ which would have given a true picture of the tobacco used and Cigarettes manufactured during the above period. Article No.3:- During the said period Sri S. Sambasiva Rao, had also failed to check the E.B.3 Account periodically which resulted in large scale suppression of production by M/s New Tobacco Co. Ltd., which resulted in loss of revenue to the government to the tune of Rs.32,96,88,000/-. Article No.4:- Sri S. Sambasiva Rao, Inspector of Central Excise during the said period failed to conduct physical checks in the factory in the process of manufacture as envisaged in the Cigarette Manual and exhibited gross negligence and dereliction of legitimate official duties.” An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that all the four charges against the respondent are not proved. By the time of submission of the enquiry report, respondent retired from service. Then, the disciplinary authority took a view that the findings of the enquiry officers are not tenable and issued a show cause notice No.39/94 dated 06-05-1994 to the respondent and he gave his reply to the show cause notice on 30-06-1994. On the basis of the reply given by the respondent, the disciplinary authority passed the order in F.No.C-160181/94-Ad.V dated 08-06-1998 imposing a penalty of 50% permanent cut in the monthly pension of the respondent. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent filed the impugned O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed a reply in the O.A. contending that with large scale dereliction of duties, the respondent and other delinquent officers have caused loss to the Government to a tune of Rs.40.00 crores and without considering the same, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent are not proved, as such, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not proper, and therefore, show-cause notice No.39/94 dated 06-05-1994 was issued to the respondent explaining as to how he was responsible for the loss caused to the Government and basing on the reply given by the respondent dated 30-06-1994, charge sheet was disposed of by the disciplinary authority by the impugned order dated 08-06-1998 punishing the respondent by imposing a penalty of 50% permanent cut in his monthly pension. According to the petitioner, the respondent was responsible for the part played by him in the fraud for about three years during his service. The other officers, who were working there for less than three years, were also punished, as such, the respondent, who was responsible for longer period of the fraud, cannot escape. 4. On considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal held that the whole issue revolves around as to whether rejection of the enquiry report, which exonerates the respondent, is proper or not and accordingly went on to hold that the main point to be noted in the show cause notice dated 06-05-1994 issued to the respondent is that there was large scale suppression of duty running into several crores of rupees, which indicates that the officers posted in the factory premises failed to carry out the required checks and controls, which they were expected to do, but the department ought to have shown the instances, wherein the respondent failed to discharge his duties. The Tribunal also held that a reading of the show cause notice does not indicate anywhere the cases, wherein the respondent was negligent, that resulted in evasion of duties; it is a mere verbal assertion on the part of the petitioner that the respondent is fully responsible for clandestine removal of dutiable goods and consequent evasion of duty and that the reasons for rejecting the enquiry report are not mentioned. The Tribunal further held that first two pages of the order of the disciplinary authority relates to the facts of the case and articles of charge and in the last two pages, there are no reasons with regard to suppression or evasion of duty. The show cause notice and the impugned order ought to have referred to specific instances. In paragraph No.8 of the order, the Tribunal observed that Court or Tribunal normally would not interfere with the punishment passed by the authority, if the same is passed with same evidence, as no reappraisal of evidence is permitted, but when there is no evidence, the Court or Tribunal simply cannot allow the order passed by the authority without looking into the reasons for passing such an order and in the present case the impugned order was passed without any evidence and it has to be treated as a case of no evidence. 5. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contends that in spite of there being evidence with regard to omissions and commissions of the respondent, the Enquiry Officer has erroneously given a finding that there is no material against him and that in spite of a reasoned order being passed by the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal has erroneously allowed the impugned O.A. and set aside the punishment. It is also the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that not only the respondent, but several other officers were involved in the transaction and they have caused loss of more than Rs.40.00 crores to the Government. Further, most of the persons, who are in service, involved in the fraud were punished with stoppage of increments and the persons who have already retired from service were punished with penalty of 50% permanent cut in their monthly pension and thus, it is not a case of singling out the respondent alone. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that no criminal proceedings are instituted against the main culprit and no loss was caused to the Government, and therefore, the respondent cannot be found fault with and punishment of penalty of 50% permanent cut in his monthly pension has to be set aside. 7. As contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General and as revealed from the record, it is a case of fraud to a tune of Rs.40.00 crore. 8. In fact, an officer of Superintendent with certain number of inspectors was working in the premises of the factory called M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited and in spite of that several of the officers have indulged in dereliction of duties and though, there is no material to show the same, obviously corruption might have occurred and it is a fact that the respondent worked there for longest period than the other delinquent officers. 9. Considering these circumstances, as merely there were some omissions in the show cause notice and the final order passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent cannot be allowed to escape, particularly in a case of this nature. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter has to be remanded back to the disciplinary authority for issuing show cause notice afresh and passing reasoned order with details of omissions and commissions of the respondent. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20-09-1999 in O.A. No.1163 of 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for issuing fresh show cause notice to the respondent and for passing final orders with all details and reasons. It is needless to say that the respondent would be at liberty to challenge the final order. 11. Pending finalisation of the enquiry, as referred above, the penalty of 50% permanent cut in the monthly pension of the respondent shall be in force. 12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 30, 2009. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV/IVD