Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of parity and fairness; failure to prove charges results in undue punitive measures against the employee.

JUDGMENT :

R. T. Vachhani, J

1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the CAT”) in Original Application No.256 of 2007 and further to quash and set aside the original order of penalty dated 24.10.2006 passed by respondent No.3, which was substituted by an order dated 03.04.2007, passed by respondent no.4 to the extent of reducing the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement and also to grant all consequential benefits, including promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.

2. The facts, in brief of the case, are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as an Inspector of Central Excise at Central Excise Division-II, Ahmedabad and served with the charge-memo dated 19.06.1998 levelling two charges that – (i) the petitioner colluded with Mr.M.J.Doshi and Mr. K. Valson Chandrasekhar and other private individuals, including the Custom House Agents to facilitate the smuggling of Ball Bearings into India under the guise of Lead Scrap; and (ii) the petitioner induced 2 Dock Appraisers, Mr.Ajoy Banik and Mr.J.N. Meena further to the illegal act of smuggling of Ball Bearings into India under the guise of Lead Scrap.

2.1 The inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.11.1999 holding the charges as not proved against the petitioner. However, in the interregnum period, the Customs Adjudication Case was decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, who, by an order dated 29.11.1999, exonerated the petitioner and all other Customs Officers implicated in the offence for violations of the provisions of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962. Thereafter, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Adjudication) before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), which came to be rejected by an order dated 25.06.2003. The said order came to be challenged before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.10347 of 2011 and other allied matters, wherein the Supreme Court, by order dated 02.08.2017 dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 and confirmed the order passed by the CEGAT.

2.2 However, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Note of Disagreement dated 11.09.2000 disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 29.11.1999 and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 16.03.2001, which later on, modified to the extent of compulsory retirement with 25% cut in pension for a period of 10 years.

2.3 Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, who, by an order dated 16.01.2002, upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement while setting aside the penalty of 25% cut in pension for a period of 10 years. Against which, the petitioner preferred OA No.241 of 2002 before the CAT, wherein, by an order dated 23.04.2004, the CAT was pleased to quash and set aside the order of the appellate authority and the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the CVC Advice in case of the petitioner was not supplied to him and non-speaking notice was issued to the petitioner and hence, the matter was remanded back to the Discipl