CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00616/2023 Dated this, the 30^th day of October Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM : HON’BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)

HON’BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)

Pydi Ramaprasad, Joint Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of CGST, Chennai VII Commissionerate, Nandanam, Chennai 600035. …..Applicant By Advocate M/s. V.Parthiban Vs.

1.Union of India, rep by, The Secretary to the Govt of India, Department of Revenue, 128-A/North Block, New Delhi 110001.

2.The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 613, 6^th Floor, HUDCO Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066.

3.The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069. ….Respondents By Advocates Mr. J. Vasu (R1 & R2), Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC (R3)

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-

“to call for the records pertaining to the recommendations of the UPSC in F.No.3/436/2020-S.I dated 14.03.2022 and the Final Order No. 41/2022 in F.No. C-14011/24B/2016 Ad V/7357 dated 29.07.2022 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore all financial benefits that the applicant is entitled to but for the impugned proceedings and grant all consequential benefits including promotion/s to the applicant and pass such further order or orders as this Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows, in brief:-

2.1. The applicant while functioning as the Joint Commissioner, O/o the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Madurai during 2016, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge memo was issued stating that the applicant accepted a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs from the person named in the charge memo at the instance of one P. Vijaykumar, Dy. Commissioner DRI, Mumbai for paying it to one Mr. M.S. Badhan, Member Customs, CBEC, New Delhi and this bribe was paid for obtaining favourable order for M/s. Universal Agency for transportation of fertilizers and other materials to Nepal through Nautanwa and Jogbani by rail. The CBI/investigating agency had monitored the telephonic conversations of the persons named in the charge memo including the applicant and on the said information, proceedings were initiated before the Designated CBI Court at Delhi. The investigating agency submitted a closure report before the Court. The Trial Court however took cognizance of the offence against the accused therein and issued summons for appearance of the accused which was challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by some of the accused along with Shri. M.S. Badhan in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2193/2015 and Criminal Miscellaneous Applications 7760-7761/2015. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dt. 03.07.2017 quashed the orders passed by the Trial Court in so far as the summoning of the accused and taking cognizance of the offence and ordered further investigation. The CBI further handed over the materials to the respondents for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant alone instead of a joint enquiry. The inquiry report was submitted after detailed hearing and during enquiry though the article of charge was not proved but however the Presenting Officer proceeded on the footing of preponderance of probability and held that though the receipt of bribe and handing over of the bribe is not proved there is a willingness on the part of the applicant to receive money against the evidence and material available during the course of the enquiry. 2.2. The applicant sent a representation against the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority which was not accepted and the case of the applicant as forwarded