The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and considered the petitioner's circumstances in modifying the penalty imposed.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - By this Petition, Petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 27 May 2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') dismissing Original Application No.1062 of 1999.

2. The case has chequered history of multiple litigations between the parties. Petitioner is 1969 batch Indian Revenue Service Officer. He came to be promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner and at the relevant time, was posted at Mangalore. Petitioner claims to have received information through Mr. K.A. Nayar, Appraising Officer about landing of contraband silver at Mangalore, which was intercepted on the high sea in the night of 17/18 December, 1990. The informer was entitled a reward of Rs.1,000/- per kg. of silver seized and therefore Mr. Nayar requested Petitioner to recommend reward to the informer. Petitioner made such a recommendation for disbursal of amount of Rs.87,77,000/- to the Informer. The Department however disbelieved the theory of seizure being done on the basis of alleged information given by the informer through Mr. Nayar.

3. Petitioner was issued memorandum charge-sheet dated 7 August, 1995 alleging two charges. In the first charge it was alleged that the seizure of smuggled silver was not based on any prior information received by Mr. Nayar nor such informer existed. That Petitioner actively helped Mr. Nayar in planting a non-existing informer with malafide intention of appropriating the reward amount. In the second charge, it was alleged that the Petitioner failed to discharge his official duties as senior supervisory officer inasmuch despite availability of officers to look after preventive and anti-smuggling activities at Mangalore, he authorized Mr. Nayar, Appraiser to do preventive and anti-smuggling work by passing regular preventive orders.

4. After holding disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding charge No.1 as proved and charge No.2 as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority however proposed to disagree with finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge No.2 and issued a show cause notice dated 24 July, 1997. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. However, nothing happened for a considerable period of time. In the meantime, Petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise retrospectively with effect from 29 April, 1990 in pursuance of an order of the Tribunal passed in separate Original Application. Petitioner filed Original Application No.455 of 1999 for quashing the disciplinary proceedings pending for over 9 years, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the proceedings within four months. Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1631 of 1999 and during pendency of that Petition, the punishment order dated 15 October, 1999 came to be passed imposing the punishment of reduction in the rank as Deputy Commissioner carrying the pay scale Rs.10,000-325-15,200. On Petitioner's Application, this Court was pleased to stay the punishment order vide its order dated 25 October, 1999. Later Petitioner withdrew Writ Petition No.1631 of 1999 on 3 December, 1999 with liberty to approach the Tribunal to challenge the penalty order. Original Application No.1062 of 1999 was filed challenging the punishment order dated 15 October, 1999. The Tribunal declined to continue stay on penalty which was granted by this Court which laid to filing of Writ Petition (L) No.3110 of 1999 (Writ Petition No.25 of 1999), which was disposed of directing the Tribunal to decide Original Application within three months and continued status quo during pendency of the Original Application. The Tribunal disposed of Original Application No.1062 of 1999 with a direction to Respondents to decide Review Petition filed by Petitioner against the penalty order dated 15 October, 1999. The order of status quo was continued. Since review was not getting