1 615.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.615 OF 2011 Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Mahesh Ashok Keni ...Respondent ...... Ms.S.I.Shah with Mr.J.B.Mishra for Petitioners. Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anilkumar Joshi for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- JULY 25, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Anilkumar Joshi waives notice for Respondent. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Petition takes exception to the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26th February, 2010 in Original Application No.496/2009. The Tribunal allowed the said Application and as a result, 2 615.11 quashed the charge-sheet dated 2nd September, 2008 issued against the respondent by the Department. The singular basis on which the charge- sheet has been quashed by the Tribunal is that the charge-sheet was in respect of allegation which pertain to period 1997-1999 and yet the charge- sheet was issued to the respondent in September, 2008. In other words, the Tribunal accepted the grievance of the respondent that there was inordinate delay in issuance of charge-sheet. The opinion so recorded by the Tribunal has been assailed in the present Petition. 5. The argument of the petitioner before this Court, is that, mere lapse of time cannot be the basis to quash the charge-sheet. Something more has to be shown. In that, the delinquent Officer is required to establish that the delay in issuance of charge-sheet is unexplained and inordinate. In the light of the submission advanced before this Court, we called upon the petitioner to place on record as to the reasons for non-issuance of charge-sheet until September, 2008. The petitioner has filed additional affidavit placing on record that the charge-sheet was issued only after the recommendation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation to proceed against the respondent departmentally. The relevant documents as well as information has now been furnished by the petitioner on affidavit dated 7th June, 2011 3 615.11 filed by Shri S.K.Mathur, Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The explanation so offered in this affidavit was not placed before the Tribunal. Instead of examining those matters for the first time by way of Writ Petition, we would think it appropriate to relegate the parties before the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter afresh in the light of explanation now offered on affidavit. Indeed, the petitioner ought to have placed this explanation on record at the first instance before the Tribunal itself. However, in the interest of justice, we allow the petitioner to place the information now referred to in the additional affidavit, before the Tribunal and in the remand proceedings, the Tribunal would consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law. 6. The Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner refers to the communication sent by the C.B.I. Dated 15th September, 2006 which in turn, refers to the report of the C.B.I. However, copy of the said report has not been made available to the respondent. Whether it is open to the respondent to insist for copy of the C.B.I. Report which is matter of investigation done by the C.B.I., can also be considered by the Tribunal in the remand proceedings. 4 615.11 7. In other words, we are inclined to set-aside the impugned decision and relegate the parties before the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter on its own merits in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the petitioner to file further affidavit in the Original Application to disclose the information now furnished in the additional affidavit filed before this Court. 8. Counsel for the respondent submits that there is additional ground to quash the charge-sheet issued against the respondent. In that, along with the respondent, charge-sheet was issued to other five employees, however, even till date, Inquiry Officer has not been appointed. Since we are relegating the parties before the Tribunal, it will be open to the respondent to amend the original application and urge further grounds, if any. So that, the Tribunal would be in a position to decide those matter on its own merits. 9. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order: (a) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 496 of 2009, is quashed and set-aside. 5 615.11 (b) The Original Application No.496/2009 is restored to the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal for being proceeded on merits de novo. (c) The respondent is free to carry out amendment to the original application to urge additional grounds, if any. That be done within four weeks from today. The amended copy of the original application be made over to the Counsel for the petitioner appearing before the Tribunal within the same time. The petitioner would be free to file further reply affidavit not only to deal with the amended original application of the respondent but also furnish additional explanation/information with regard to the cause for non-issuance of charge-sheet until September, 2008 against the respondent. (d) The Tribunal shall consider all matters on its own merits, uninfluenced by its earlier decision or for that matter, any observation in this order. 6 615.11 (e) As the original application has been restored to the file to its original number, the interim arrangement which obtained during the pendency of the said application shall continue till the disposal thereof or until such time, the Tribunal would direct. (f) Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)