q * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #14-15. + w.P.(c) 1013L12009 UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Mr.R.N.Singh, Mr.A.S.Singh, Advs. VCTSUS BHUPENDER SINGH SUHAG Through: + w.P.(c) 11140/2009 ..... Respondent Mr.Piyush Kumar, Mr.Chinmay Agrawal, Mr.Arunabh Dey, Advs. I uor rhroush: Mr.R.V.sinr,u,'Ulil'l'.Tfrir, Mr.A.S.Singh, Advs. versus PRADEEP SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.PiyushKumar,Mr.Chinmay Agrawal, Mr.Arunabh Dey, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG ORDER o/o 25.O8.2O1O 1. Three persons, lrfan Ahmed, Assistant Commissioner Customs, Bhupender Singh Suhag Appraiser, and Pradeep Sharma Appraiser, were issued three pari materia separate charge sheets pertaining to the same imports. The only difference being a reference to their respective role as Assistant Commissioner Customs and Appraiser. 2. All three challenged. the charge memo on various grounds; one of which was delay in initiating the departmental action. 3. Whereas lrfan Ahmed petitioned the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Pradeep Sharma, and Bhupender Singh Suhag petitioned Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench. rt W.Ps. (C) 1 073 1/20 09 & 7L L402009 Page L of 2. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 1 4. The first to be victorious was lrfan Ahmed. The Tribuna'l held in his favour on various grounds, one of which was the inordinate delay in initiating departmental action. 5. The writ petition filed by the department against decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, suffered dismissal in limine and further challenged before the Supreme Court succeeded, The Supreme Court directed Bombay High Court to re-hear the matter and decided with a reasoned decision. 6. At the remanded stage the writ petition filed by,the petitioners before the Bombay High Court stood dismissed with a speaking order on 08.07.2009. The said order has since attained finality for the reason the Supreme Court refused to grant Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the Bombay High Court. 7. Thus, giving no further reasons, save and except that three persons who are charged of the same set of misdemeanor, pertaining to the same period, cannot reach different destinations; if the initiation of the journey against lrfan Ahmed has attained finality in the foim of a closure on account of inordinate delay, same should be the benefit available to the respondents; the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 8. No costs. C.M.8ss2/2009 in W.P.(C).1013L/2009 C.M.10533/2009 in W.P,(C),11140/2009 Dismissed as infructous. AUGUST 25,z0L0lanb W.Ps. (C) L 0L3 L/20 09 & 777402 009 l_^:ny PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J D GARG,