CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH Original Application No. 540/2017 Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025.

CORAM:

Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

1. Shri. Ashokkumar, Son ofShri Babulal Gandhi, Age: 52 years, Working as Havaldar in the office of the respondents, Residing at 49, Sona Jarita, Mani Bag, Abrama, Valsad. 396 002.

… Applicant (By Advocate Mr. M S Trivedi)

V/s.

1. The Principal Commissioner O/o. Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Nr. All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009.

2. The DeputyCommissioner, O/o. Dy. Commissioner, Customs Division, Valsad. 396 001.

…Respondents (By Advocate Mr. H D Shukla)

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. In the instant OA, the applicant being aggrieved with the charge memorandum dated 10.10.2017 issued by the respondent no.2 as well as for non consideration of his representation dated 23.10.2017, has filed the present OA, seeking relief to declare that the action of respondents to issue charge memorandum against him and non consideration of his representation thereon is illegal, arbitrary and non-est in the eyes of law.

2. Mr. M S Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted that:

2.1 While applicant was working as Havaldar in Custom Division Office, Valsad, during the period of August, 2013, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Valsad against the applicant while CR No. 06/2013 under Prevention of Corruption Act (i.e., the PC Act), in the said criminal complaint it was alleged that the applicant herein had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- per Identity Card from the Indian Fisherman who navigate in the sea in Valsad District. The trap was carried out and in presence of Punch, he had demanded three thousand five hundred Rupees (Rs. 3500/-) and allegedly accepted the said bribe amount i.e., illegal gratification other than legal remuneration through one Smt. Vanitaben Mohanbhai Patel, Hawaldar, Customs Division, Valsad from the supporters.

2.2 After four years of registration of said criminal case i.e., in the year

2013, the Disciplinary Authority based on the said criminal case and the material had decided to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule – 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules against the applicant and accordingly had issued charge memorandum dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure A/1) wherein identical alleged charges has been mentioned as alleged in the criminal case no. 06/2013 of the ACB. Not only that the documents by which the Article of Charge levelled against the applicant in the said charge memorandum relied upon (i.e., RUDs)

and the list of witnesses are common in nature.

2.3 Therefore, on receipt of the said charge memorandum dated

29.08.2017, the applicant had submitted his detailed representation before the Disciplinary Authority on 23.10.2017 (Annexure A/2). Wherein it has been averred by the applicant that the trial of the criminal case is pending before the Hon’ble Session Court and submitting any defence/reply in the departmental proceeding prior to the completion of cross-examination of the witnesses before the Trial Court will be detrimental to his case and same will jeopardize his defence. Further, it is stated therein that as per the relied upon documents/evidence, it can be established that there was no demand of money by him from any person for execution of duties during the alleged period. Therefore, there is no case against him. He has also referred an order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Lal Chand Meena, Superintendent, Customs & Anr. wherein considering the fact that, the Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated on identical charges as levelled in the criminal case, this Tribunal directed the Disciplinary Authorities to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance for one year and requested the Disciplinary Authority to defer the departmental proceedings till the completion of the criminal proceedings, since, the case of the applicant is also identi