Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; delay alone does not invalidate proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'] in O.A. No.2276/2023 whereby the Tribunal declined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner and disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the Competent Authority to ensure that the pending inquiry is concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order.

2. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the learned Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to interfere with the charge memorandum dated 21.05.2021 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, particularly on the grounds urged by the Petitioner, namely, (i) alleged non-compliance with Rule 14(24) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; and (ii) inordinate delay in conclusion of the inquiry proceedings.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent No.1 as a direct recruit Appraiser through the Union Public Service Commission ['UPSC'] in the year 1993. In the normal course of service, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax in the year 2005; thereafter as Deputy Commissioner in the year 2011; as Joint Commissioner in the year 2015; and subsequently as Additional Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax in the year 2018. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner continued to hold the post of Additional Commissioner from the year 2018 onwards.

5. While working as Deputy Commissioner, the Petitioner was deputed to SEEPZ (Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone), Special Economic Zone, Mumbai, functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India where he was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner in the year 2015 and was subsequently selected as Joint Development Commissioner in the year 2016.

6. SEEPZ functions under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Special Economic Zone Authority Rules, 2009. During the tenure of the Petitioner in SEEPZ, he was additionally assigned the charge of Estate Manager and Secretary to the Authority by the Development Commissioner.

7. The Petitioner completed his deputation tenure of four years and was repatriated to his parent cadre, namely the Ministry of Finance, in June, 2019.

8. According to the Petitioner, during the period when he was serving under the Ministry of Commerce, the Department of Commerce sought first stage advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in relation to certain alleged irregularities. The said advice was furnished by the CVC vide communication dated 18.07.2019. The Department of Commerce is stated to have prepared a draft charge memorandum and forwarded the matter, along with the first stage advice, to the Ministry of Finance in August, 2019.

9. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued a charge memorandum dated 21.05.2021 to the Petitioner proposing initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner asserted that the said charge mem