THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.16374 OF 2007 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.6.2007 in O.A.No.641 of 2006. The petitioner herein who is working as Superintendent of Customs and Cental Excise, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionarate, Visakhapatnam, had approahced the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the memo dated 4.10.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent pursuant to which the 3rd respondent had proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules,1965. The petitioner states that while he was working as Inspector of Customs in the Unaccompanied Baggage Unit in Aircargo Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, conducted certain checks on 2.5.1992 and in pursuance of the subsequent investigations, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.17 of 1998 before the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases. However, the Special Court vide order dated 23.12.2003 observed that that the entire exercise done by the C.B.I on 2.5.1992 and the subsequent searches etc., wihout first registering the F.I.R., would be illegal and accordingly acquitted the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner's case for promotion was not considered and later the C.B.I filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.213 of 2005 which is said to be pending before this Court. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent also issued the impugned notice dated 4.10.2006 proposing to impose major penality. Questioning the said charges and the memo dated 4.10.2008, petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal found that the charges in the departmental proceedings sought to be intiated against the petitioner are different from the charge in the criminal proceedings and on facts, the said contentions of the petitioner was rejected. The Tribunal also found that the acquittal or exoneration from a criminal offence is no bar for conducting disciplinary enquiry and in that view of the matter the Tribunal was of the view that the respondents are entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings and as such the impugned charge memo cannot be quashed and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Heard Sri P.Naveen Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petititioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged various contentions and particularly highlighting the delay of 14 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo though the incident relates to May, 1992, the impugned charge memo is dated 4.10.2006. The learned counsel has made submissions regarding the actual events that occurred at the time of the incident in question. However, it would not be proper for us to go into all the said factual aspects as the same is the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings and the charge memo is already issued. The petitioner would have full and adequate opportunity to defend himself by raising all the contentions available to him as per law including the ground of delay as sought to be urged before us. Therefore, keeping the said liberty to the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition in view of the specific findings of the Tribunal. With regard to the merits of the contentions, that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case being different from the stand point of nature of proof; there is no bar in conducting the disciplinary proceedings even in spite of acquittal of the petitioner by the C.B.I Court. We are therefore of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitionr is at liberty to raise all the contentions available under law before the disciplinary proceedings and since the incident, in question, relates to 1992, the respondent may proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and complete the same expeditiously, preferably within four mothhs from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due and adequate opportunity to the petitioner. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 4.8.2009 kpr