Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10310
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sunil Thomas, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, A
P.H. Noushad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 180/00308/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi, Mr. Kailesh T. Gopi, Ms. Nishitha Balachandran
For the Respondents: Mr. C. Rajendran, Senior Panel Counsel
Disciplinary proceedings require concrete evidence; reliance solely on retracted confessions is insufficient to establish guilt.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Disciplinary proceedings - Reliance on retracted confession statements - The inquiry officer concluded the applicant was guilty based on retracted confessions and surmises. Legal standard for bribery charges requires concrete evidence - The Tribunal found no admissible evidence to support charges. (Paras 2, 11, 12, 25)
(B) Evidentiary value of Confession Statements - Statements must be corroborated; reliance on retracted confessions deemed unsatisfactory - The Tribunal ruled that absence of direct incrimination in evidence against the applicant warranted reversal of disciplinary action. (Paras 18, 24)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged a penalty imposed for alleged involvement in a bribery case, which had not been proven with credible evidence in a previous trial where all accused were acquitted.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry was fundamentally flawed due to reliance on uncorroborated and retracted confessions against the applicant, who was not directly implicated by the evidence.
Issues: The court addressed whether the disciplinary measures were substantiated by admissible evidence and the appropriate evidentiary standards required to uphold charges of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal determined that disciplinary actions require clear, direct evidence of wrongdoing; reliance on retracted confessions without additional corroboration is insufficient. The proceedings were deemed void of credible evidence.
Result: The application was allowed, and the disciplinary sanctions were set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the applicant's disciplinary case and previous acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. inquiry officer's reliance on questionable evidentiary standards. (Para 9 , 23 , 26) |
| 3. legal standards require solid evidence beyond retracted confessions. (Para 18 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant was a Stenographer of Customs under the respondents posted at Calicut Airport during the period from 22.1.2005 to 31.5.2006. He challenges the penalty imposed on him by Annexure A1 and the related orders in appeal and revision preferred by him, challenging the penalty order.
2. CBI conducted a search at Calicut Airport on 2.11.2005. Alleging hat corruption was prevalent among the officers of Customs in aid with agents, CBI registered RC No. 26(A)/2005/CBI/ACB/KER against 36 officers working in various categories in the Customs Department posted at Calicut Airport, during the period August 2005 to November, 2005. The offences alleged against those accused were under Section 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged in the charge sheet that the above officers entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves by receiving illegal gratification from passengers arriving at Calicut Airport from foreign countries. The bribe so collected were entrusted to certain third parties, including one P.P. Abdul Rehman alias Paithal, P.P. Ahamed and V.P. Vijayan, who used to distribute the respective shares to accused and other non-accused officers of the Customs Department. It was alleged that each of them received specified amount. On the basis of the crime registered, investigation was conducted and after conclusion of investigation, final report was laid. All the accused faced trial before the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam in CC No. 7/2007. All of them were acquitted by Annexure A14 judgment.
3. Alleging that in the course of investigation of RC 26(A)/2005, it was revealed that a system of bribe collection from the passengers existed, and that several officers of Customs on duty at Calicut Airport. The applicant herein was a party to the system of receiving their portion of bribe. 23 officers who were not arrayed as accused in RC No. 26(A)/2005 were charge sheeted. Annexure A4 is the memorandum of charge in so far as it relates to the applicant herein. The statement of article of charge framed against the applicant reads as follows:
“During the course of investigation in RC 26(A)/2005 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against officers working in Calicut Airport, Karipur, it was revealed that a system of bribe collection from passengers arriving from abroad was prevalent in the Calicut Airport since February, 2005 and the Station Duty Officer. Shri C.J. Thomas, Inspector and subsequently Shri T.C. Rajkumar, Inspector, used to give directions to Shri P.P. Abdul Rehman @ Paithal, a private person, to distribute the bribe collection among the Customs officials working at Calicut Airport. Shri P.H. Noushad, who worked as Stenographer at Calicut Airport from 22.1.2005 to 31.5.2006 was a beneficiary of this bribe collection by Customs officials at Calicut Airport and along with Shri N.P. Gopinath, Tax Assistant, he received from T. Ramachandran, Havaldar a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as their share of bribe for the fortnight 16.9.2005 to 30.9.2005. Shri P.H. Noushad, Stenographer, thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant in as much as he received share of bribe collected from the passengers arriving from abroad at the Airport by Customs officials.
By the above acts, Shri P.H. Noushand, as a Government servant, violated Rule 3(1)(i) of the CCS© Rules, 1964.”.
The applicant denied the allegations and submitted Annexure A5 reply. A composite inquiry was ordered against all the 23 officials. By Annexure A7 report, the inquiry off
