In disciplinary proceedings, reliance on confessions not admissible against employees due to absence of direct evidence leads to punitive actions being unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

(Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)

1. Heard Smt. Neeta U. Masurkar, learned counsel representing the Petitioners – Union of India, Ms. Neeta Karnik learned Counsel representing the Respondent in Writ Petition No.9062 of 2011, Mr. Vishal P. Shirke learned Counsel representing the Petitioner and Mrs. Shehnaz Bharucha learned Counsel representing the Respondent - Union of India in Writ Petition No.11229 of 2013.

2. Since the subject matter of these two Writ Petitions and the issues which arise for our consideration are intertwined, these petitions are being decided by the following common judgment and order:

CHALLENGE AND FACTS OF THE CASE:

(A) Facts as pleaded in Writ Petition No.11229 Of 2013:

3. Petitioner – Yashwant Balu Lotale has questioned the validity of the judgment dated 13th June 2013 passed by the Bombay Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application No.465 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has declined to interfere with the order of penalty dated 31st January 2008 and has accordingly dismissed the Original Application. By the order of penalty dated 31st January 2008, the Petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement from Government service in terms of Rule 11(vii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965). Said order further provides that the Petitioner shall be entitled to only 65% of the full compensation of pension and gratuity under Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

4. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai – III issued a Memorandum on 25th May 1998 against the Petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was working as Superintendent of Central Excise, which was accompanied by Articles of Charge and statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Articles of Charge. The charge sheet against the Petitioner contained two charges. The first charge against the Petitioner was that while working as Superintendent though the Petitioner was alerted by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) about possible landing of contraband, however, he failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the landing in his jurisdiction by effectively mobilizing and controlling his team of officers. As per the Article of Charge No.1, the Petitioner was charged with laxity shown by him which contributed to landing of smuggled explosives, arms and ammunitions which were used in conducting bomb blast in Mumbai during the year 1993, as a result of which loss to innocent human lives as also several buildings was caused. In view of these imputations, the Petitioner was, thus, charged for having contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1), (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

5. As per Article of Charge No.2, the Petitioner was charged with having received illegal gratification for turning a blind eye towards landing of contraband consisting of explosives, arms and ammunitions and by such acts of omission and commission, the Petitioner was further charged for failure to m