Point of Law : Court does not ordinarily interfere at the show-cause or charge-sheet stage; however, interference in some very rare and exceptional cases can always be made and the show-cause/charge-sheet quashed if the same is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason it is wholly illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

Writ Petition No. 5764 of 2021

THE QUESTION REQUIRING AN ANSWER

1. Should the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules by issuance of Memorandum of Charges dated October 23, 2013 (hereafter “the charge-sheet”, for short), served on him on October 29, 2013, i.e., immediately preceding his retirement on superannuation on October 31, 2013 as Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, be interdicted and nullified on the ground of delay as well as subsequent acquittal in judicial proceedings, is the question that we are tasked to decide on this writ petition.

THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE WRIT PETITION

2. Reference to the facts and circumstances leading to institution of the writ petition, as a prelude to our decision, may not be inapt.

3. The petitioner was a member of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) having been recruited in 1979. The incidents giving rise to the charge-sheet dated October 23, 2013 relate to an incident of July 10, 2000, when the petitioner was working as Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) in the Export Promotion Commissionerate, New Customs House, Mumbai. The said incident of July 10, 2000 related to a party, M/s. Pacific International Exporters, which was allegedly allowed to successfully claim excess drawback contrary to law. In 2002, the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Acting on an audit report, the Anti- Corruption Bureau of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai, (hereafter ‘the ACB/CBI”, for short) registered a First Information Report (hereafter “FIR”, for short) dated December 31, 2004. One Hemant Kothikar, Deputy Commissioner, Customs Frere Basin, Dock, Mumbai, was named as the prime accused in such FIR. Incidentally, the petitioner was not named as an accused therein. However, in course of conducting investigation, certain materials were collected and on the basis thereof, the ACB/CBI submitted an internal report in September, 2007 recommending prosecution against nine persons including the petitioner. In September 2007 itself, the CBI had forwarded all the relevant documents to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereafter, “the Board”, for short) for issuing a departmental charge-sheet under the relevant service rules as well as charge-sheet under the penal laws. On January 23, 2008, the Board forwarded a note to the Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter “the CVC”, for short) along with a report of the ACB/CBI recommending departmental action against the petitioner. The CVC, vide its Office Memorandum dated February 4, 2008, advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner and other departmental officers as well as their prosecution. Upon receipt of the same from the CVC, the Board requested the Directorate General of Vigilance, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi (hereafter “the DGV”, for short), by letter dated May 12, 2008, to furnish draft charge-sheet in respect of the petitioner along with certified copies of the relied upon documents. On July 16, 2008, sanction to the ACB/CBI to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the competent authority, resulting in filing of a police report (charge-sheet) under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against accused persons including the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 120B read with sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter “the IPC”, for short) and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter “the PC Act”, for short). Charges were framed under sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC together with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act by the Special (CBI) Court and the petitioner faced trial before it. In due course of time, the petitioner acquired eligibility to be consi