1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2079 OF 2007 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners. vs. Shri.Irfan Ahmed. ...Respondent. --- Mr.R.R.Shetty, for Petitioners. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Advocate i/b. Ramesh Ramamurthy, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 8th July,2009. P.C.:- 1. By this Petition the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26.7.2006. By that order the C.A.T. has allowed the petition filed by the respondent and 2 set aside the chargesheet dated 17.10.2005 issued by the petitioners against the respondent. The relevant facts are that the respondent was working as Assistant Commissioner of Customs in the year 1998. A chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 17.10.2005 alleging misconduct against him in discharge of his duties as Assistant Commissioner in the year 1998. Among other grounds, the chargesheet was challenged on the ground that the allegation of misconduct relates to his functioning as quasi judicial authority and therefore, it cannot be the subject matter of disciplinary inquiry. The other ground was that the alleged misconduct relates to the year 1998 whereas the chargesheet was issued after Seven years i.e. in the year 2005 and because of passage of time and delay the defence of the respondent is impaired. It appears that the defence of the petitioners was that there are allegations of connivance and lack of integrity made in the chargesheet and therefore, though the alleged misconduct relates to quasi judicial function of the respondent they can be the subject matter of the inquiry. So far as the aspect of delay is concerned, 3 it was contended that mere delay in holding departmental inquiry cannot defeat the inquiry. The C.A.T. decided the petition by order dated 26.7.2006. The Tribunal found in favour of the respondent. It found that all the charges relate to his functioning as quasi judicial authority. It also found that there is no material showing that there is any lack of integrity or connivance with the importers. It also found that the delay involved in issuing chargesheet has impaired the defence of the respondent and therefore, the Tribunal set aside the chargesheet and quashed the departmental inquiry. 2. It is that order of the Tribunal which is challenged in this petition. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners took us through the record and submitted that perusal of the chargesheet shows that there are allegations made against the respondent that he made orders in his capacity as quasi judicial authority in connivance with the importers and there is lack of integrity. According to the learned Counsel therefore, taking allegations made in the 4 chargesheet and memorandum of allegations at face value, it cannot be said that there was no material to proceed against the respondent. The learned Counsel also submits that mere delay in holding inquiry cannot defeat the inquiry. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondent, we have also perused the record. We find from the record that the CAT has considered the entire material on record in proper perspect. It has also appreciated the position of law on the point correctly. It has found that so far as the decisions of the respondent which are subject matter of the chargehseet are concerned, some of them were not at all challenged in appeal, some were challenged in appeal but appeal failed, some decisions were made subject matter of show cause notice but that show cause notice was also dropped, and therefore, all the decisions, reference to which was made in the chargesheet, have become final. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that though mere allegations of connivance is made, there is no material produced 5 on record on the basis of which it can be said that there exist any connivance with the importers. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly found that had there been lack of integrity or connivance, the decisions would have been challenged in appeal or show cause notice would have been proceeded further. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the chargesheet relates to the alleged misconduct committed by the respondent in performance of his quasi judicial function. What is further to be found here is that it is clear from the record that even Central Vigilance Commission had given its opinion about initiation of proceedings of departmental inquiry in the month of July,2002. Even thereafter, three years were taken just for issuing chargesheet. What is further to be seen here is that after the year 1998 the respondent was promoted twice and in the year 2005 he was promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner of Customs and Excise on regular basis. The Tribunal found that because of passage of time now the defence of the respondent is also impaired inasmuch as the witnesses who will be 6 examined in his defence may not be available because the proceedings in relation to those importers either have been dropped or not proceeded further. Therefore, the Tribunal found that allowing holding of departmental inquiry against the respondent in such a situation will be unreasonable. In our opinion, such findings recorded by the Tribunal are the findings which are possible to be recorded on the basis of the material on record, and therefore, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with those findings in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the petition has no substance. It fails and is dismissed. No order to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)