Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee undermines the principles of natural justice and warrants quashing the penalty imposed.

ORDER

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

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

“(a) To set aside the Order of the 1^st Respondent dated 01.01.2024 in Order No. 01/2024 in F.No. C-14012/20/2017-Ad.V/14157 and communicated by the 3^rd Respondent vide Letter dated 18.01.2024.

(b) And consequently, direct the respondents to disburse all the monetary benefits.”

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

2.1 While the applicant was working as the Superintendent of Central Excise in the Karaikal Division, he was issued with a Show Cause Notice on 19.05.2009 stating that the bill dt. 08.02.2008 of lading number of certain cargo did not tally with the seal number mentioned in the import laden container and that betel nuts had been smuggled in the guise of cashew nuts. The applicant submitted an explanation dt. 19.08.2009 requesting to drop further proceedings. Pursuant to the same, the 2^nd respondent issued a Memorandum of Charges vide his proceedings dt. 15.11.2011 framing 12 charges in total. The applicant submitted a detailed submission to each charge framed stating that there is no question of revenue loss and that the charges are untenable.

2.2. After inquiry, the inquiry report dt. 20.12.2013 was submitted holding that one charge stands partly proved. The 2^nd respondent disciplinary authority on 29.03.2022 disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and called for an explanation from the applicant. The applicant submitted his explanation dt. 04.04.2022 in respect of the disagreement of the 2^nd respondent with the inquiry report. The 1^st respondent vide proceedings dt. 01.01.2024 imposed a penalty of withholding 20% of monthly pension for 03 years and gratuity, if required, based on the advice of the UPSC that charges against the applicant is partly proved.

2.3. The applicant submits that the alleged incident took place on 24.04.2008. The charge memo was issued on 15.11.2011 and the applicant retired on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2011. The proceedings were continued under Rule 9 (now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules ). The disciplinary authority initially concurred with the inquiry report that charge memorandum stood party proved. It is further submitted that after a lapse of about 16 years, the impugned order was passed imposing a major punishment, thus withholding the applicant's retirement benefits at his age of 72 years. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid benefits.

3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Commissioner. Central Excise & Service Tax, Tiruchchirapalli, vide Memorandum dt. 15.11.2011 initiated in tuin Disciplinary Proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 alleging negligence on the part of the applicant in verifying the seal number on the import laden containers before Customs Examination which led to illegal import of betel nuts by way of substitution of betel nuts with raw cashews, which in turn caused a loss of public revenue to the tune of Rs. 4,67,399/-. The said proceedings were continued as deemed proceeding under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 consequent upon retirement of the applicant on superannuation on 31.12.2011.

3.2. The respondents have contended that after denial of the charges, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing Inquiring Officer and Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report dt. 20.12.2013 and held the charges against the applicant as “Partly Proved”. On consideration of the Inquiry Report, the