( 1 ) HON'ble WAS, JIn this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28. 11. 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, jodhpur in Original Application No. 241/07, whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner and further directed that the respondents shall finalize the departmental proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order as the incident mentioned in the charge-sheet related to the year 1995. Applicant-petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings fully.

( 2 ) AS per brief facts of the case, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide charge memo dated 16. 8. 2007. In the charge-sheet, three articles of charges against the petitioner relating to the incident of year 1995, in respect of which a criminal case was also registered and the relied documents as appended as a list with the charge-sheet also are same as of the criminal case including the FIR.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the Income Tax Department working since 1995. The alleged misconduct for which charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 16. 8. 2007 relates to criminal case also. The CBI Registered an FIR on 26. 4. 1995 in which challan was filed and, subsequent to trial of the said criminal case, he was acquitted by the C. B. I. Court. After acquittal, the respondent department sought explanation from the petitioner vide show-cause notice dated 4. 2. 2003 as to way disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. The petitioner filed his explanation vide communication dated 4. 2. 2003 and denied all the allegations in detail and being satisfied after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority concluded that this is not fit case for initiating disciplinary proceedings as the action being regular and bona fide having no mens rea. With the above observation it was recommended by the disciplinary authority that no disciplinary action is required against the petitioner.

( 4 ) IT is very strange that subsequent to the above decision of the disciplinary authority, though the petitioner was acoorded promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer with effect from 24. 10. 2003, from the date persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, after opening the sealed cover in furtherance of the recommendation of the DPC, But, after about 12 years of the alleged period of charges, again, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection vide letter dated 10. 9. 2007 in detail but the respondents vide order dated 14. 9. 2007 rejected the same stating that acquittal from the criminal Court will not be a bar for initiation of the departmental proceedings and delay was not totally attributable to the department.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed original application before the Central administrative Tribunal, in which, he challenged the order dated 14. 9. 2007 whereby he raised objection with regard to issuance of fresh charge-sheet against him for the charges upon which criminal case was registered and petitioner was acquitted; and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice to him against which he filed his explanation and that explanation was accepted by the disciplinary authority with due satisfaction found that it is not fit case for initiating any departmental proceedings; but, as per the respondents, in the reply submitted before the Tribunal there was difference of opinion in between the C. B. I. and Commissioner, therefore, the matter was referred to the Central Vigilance Committee (C. V. C.) culminating into the charge-sheet.

( 6 ) AS per respondents, upon the advice of the C. V. C. The charge-sheet was issued even after 12 years of the alleged misconduct and delay in issuance of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document