Delay in initiating departmental proceedings can be a crucial factor for the Court to intervene and quash the proceedings, especially when the delay is abnormal and the reasons provided for the delay are unacceptable.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioners – Sh. Shakti Singh and Sh. Joseph Kuok (referred to hereafter by their names) are aggrieved by the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 28.02.2014 in O.A. No. 1014 of 2013 & 1002 of 2013. The CAT did not accept their request for quashing of charge sheet issued to them, alleging that they had committed misconduct between 1998-99. The charge sheet was issued in 2011.

2. At the relevant point in time, i.e. November 1998 – January 1999, Sh. Shakti Singh was working as Inspector of Customs and Sh. Joseph Kuok was working as Superintendent of Customs. Certain investigations were conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into consignments of exports by M/s. Aravali (India) Ltd. against shipping bills. The allegations pertained to misdeclaration and over-valuation, with the resultant revenue loss on account of drawback claim by the shipper or consignor. The adjudication orders appear to have been made in 2003 and the DRI appears to have, immediately thereafter, recommended departmental action against 23 officers, including the present petitioners. However, it was only in October 2011 that finally the respondent authorities woke up and sought to initiate departmental proceedings against all those 23 individuals. Apart from the petitioners, there were others, such as Sh. Hari Singh, Sh. Madan Lal, Sh. M.S. Bhatia, Sh. Rakesh and Sh. Zaki Anwar. The applications of those officers filed before the CAT were eventually allowed on the ground that initiation of departmental proceedings was vitiated by undue delay and laches. The respondent, UOI questions two of those decisions by approaching this Court by filing writ petitions, i.e. in the case of Union of India vs. Hari Singh, W.P. (C) 4245 of 2013, dated 23.09.2013 and Union of India vs. Madan Lal, W.P. (C) 3944 of 2012, dated 01.10.2013. The writ petitions were dismissed by separate judgments.

3. It was in the background of these circumstances that the present petitioners as well as one Ms. Achla Khera approached the CAT, which by its common impugned order, did not quash the charge memo on the ground of delay, but even after noticing the rulings in Hari Singh and Madan Lal, directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ representation for dropping of the proceedings, in the light of the writ proceedings earlier mentioned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the charge memos issued to Sh. Hari Singh and Sh. Madan Lal on the one hand as well as Sh. Shakti Singh and Sh. Joseph Kuok, on the other, and emphasizes that there is practically no difference in the nature of charges. It is contended that unless 23 officers including the present petitioners Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Hari Singh were sought to be implicated for identical charges, the refusal by the CAT to quash the departmental proceedings despite the authority of the two judgments of this Court, is erroneous. The respondents apparently did not pursue the matter after the judgments were delivered in the cases of Hari Singh and Madan Lal. Learned counsel for the respondents also was unable to show any difference between the facts of this case pertaining to the charges against the present petitioners and the charges leveled against other individuals in whose cases the relief has become final. During the course of hearing, the petitioners’ counsel has also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, Ms. Achla Khera’s representation was accepted and the charge sheet against her was dropped/withdrawn. He relied upon a copy of the order dated 30.07.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad in this regard.

5. This Court has considered the submissions. The charge sheet in the case of Shakti Singh impugned in the present proceeding is as follows:

“Statement of Articles of Charges Framed against Shri Shakti Singh, Superintendent (then Inspector)

That the said Shri Shakti Singh, Superintendent (then In