Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Siraj Khan vs M/O Commerce on 10 March, 2023
if ® i OA 3578/2021 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA NO.578/2021 . th Dated = Fri day, the \0 day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HON'BLE MS, LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.Siraj Khan, S/o Sardar Khan, No.257, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai 16 . Applicant By Advocate M/s S.Harinyi Vs. 1. Union of India, Rep., by Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110 107, 2, The Development Commissioner, Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045. 3.The Joint Development: Commissioner, Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045. 4,The Deputy Development Commissioner, Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045. 5. The Executive Assistant, Officer of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Hiqaways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600.045. .. «Respondents By Advocate Mr.K.Rafendran 2 OA.578/2021 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"(ijTo call for records relating to order vide No.1/25/2020-Adm.! dated 06.10.2020 passed by the 2™ respondent and set aside the same.
{ii} To call. for records relating to order vide No.1/25/2020-Adm.! dated 12.11.2020 passed by the 2" respondent and set aside the same."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant is as follows:
The applicant who has joined as a LDC In the office of the respondent on 24,02.1984 came to be transferred In the same capacity from New Delhi on 01.09.1987 and joined in the office of the Deputy Director, Save Grain Campaign office. By order dated 02.02.1998, the applicant came to be transferred to the office of the Development Commissioner, Madras, Export Processing Zone, on 06.05.2010, the applicant came to be promoted to the post of UDC. On 01.02.2019, the 4" respondent has issued a note and sought for explanation from the applicant regarding his absence at the time of Flag Hoisting in the 70" Republic Day. Applicant has submitted a sultable reply. Further on 06.12.2019, the 4" respondent has Issued a memo seeking explanation from the applicant and his superior Assistant Development Commissioner questioning the delay in updation of SEZ online pertaining to the renewal of letter of approval with respect of M/s. ATC Tyres Private Limited. On 11.12.2019 applicant has submitted his reply to the memo. On 12.02.2020 the 4" respondent issued a stern warning as to not to repeat such mistake. Although no lapse was specifically proved, 2.1 On 11.11.2019, an office order was Issued by the 2" respondent that 3 OA 578/2021 the verification and certificate of the SOFTEX form being done by the Assistant Development Commissioner shall henceforth be carried out by the authorized officer posted from the Customs side at SEZ in respect of units under their jurisdiction. According to the applicant certain clarifications has been issued by the 2" respondent In respect of implementation of the said orders. Though the applicant was following with the said orders, however on 20.07.2020, an office memorandum is issued by the 3" respondent alleging that in spite of the office order dated 11.11.2019, some SOFTEX in SEZ online were verified in the name of applicant and call the explanation from the applicant to his position on 21.07.2020 at 13.05pm. Applicant has recelved the said memo on 21.07.2020 and preliminary enquiry was conducted and applicant was issued a suspension order on 08.09.2020 by 1* respondent.
2.2 Subsequently applicant has also received order of appointment of inquiry officer as wel) as presenting officer in the disciplinary proceedings dated 08.09.2020. The applicant contended that the sald order of suspension as well as appotnting the inquiry officer and presenting officer in the matter without following Rule 14(3) and Rule 14(4) of CCS CCA Rules 1965. The 3" respondent without having any authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and without any show cause conducted the said inquiry. To challenge the same the applicant has filed OA 443/2020 and prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the Impugned orders dated 08.09.2020.
Pending the said OA the respondents have revoked the suspension order by order dated 01.01.2021 and also issued fresh charge memo dated 06.10.2020 to which the applicant has filed written submission on 27.10.2020. On 12.11.2020, corrigendum to the charge memo has been issued by the 1* respondent. Being aggrieved the applicant has chailenged 4 OA 578/2021 the same in the present OA on the ground that the inquiry conducted without giving sufficient time to the applicant to recollect the events. The applicant also contended that the charge memo has been issued without any application of mind and inquiry Is baseless without any evidence and hence applicant is challenging the said charge memo in the present OA and praying for the abovesaid relief,
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their detailed reply and opposed the relief prayed by the applicant on the ground that the applicant has not followed with the instructions given by the superiors and after conduction of preliminary enquiry, the disciplinary authority has initiated the said disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as the prima facie case has been showed against the applicant. The respondents contended that as per the vigilance manual issued by the DOPT, Govt of India when a complaint is received against the Government official, the disciplinary authority is required to cause the preliminary Investigation conducted into the complaint and check the veracity of the complaint and if the complaint is true to collect evidence in support of the charge. The preliminary inquiry report forms the basis of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the government official. Therefore, the action initiated against the respondents is followed with due process of law and according to the law, The respondents also contended that looking to the preliminary inquiry report, the prima facle case has been made against the applicant to initiate the said disciplinary inquiry, only after completion of the satd inquiry proceedings, it will be concluded as to whom has committed the delinquent act. Therefore the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA, 3 OA 578/2021
4. The epplicant has also written submissions reiterating the averments made in the OA. In support of his contention he has also relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Union of India & Ors Vs. B.V.Gopinath (Supreme court of India ~C.A.No.7761/2013 dated 05.09.2013
(ii) Tea Board and Ors. Vs. Rasamoy Roy and Others (High court of Calcutta} MANU/WB/0379/2007
(iii) C.Vadakathian Vs. The Specia! Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration and Ors. (High Court of Madurai Bench) MANU/TN/2687/2011
(iv) Chhedi Lal Vs. Union of India (CAT-Delhi OA No.1377/2008 dt.
26.02.2009)
(v) Dr.Hira Lal Vs. M/o Health & Family Welfare (CAT-Delhi OA No.1926/2015 dt. 01.08.2017)
5. Heard M/s.S.Harinyi for the applicant and MrkK.Rajendran. for the respondents and perused the OA along with relevant records.
6. Itis to be noted that on 11.11.2019, an office order was Issued by the 2°¢ respondent directing that the verification and certification of the Softex Form being done by the Assistant Development Commissioner shall hence forth be carried out by the authorized officers posted from the customs side at SEZ in respect of the units under thelr jurisdiction. Further, on 22,11.2019, an office order was issued by the 2™ respondent directing the Softex form pending at initiation level till 11.11.2019 was required to be transferred to the authorised officer and any difficulty in the implementation was to be brought to the notice of the department. Again on 05.03.2020, an office order was issued by the 2™ respondent directing that Softex form pending at initiation level till £1.11.2019 was to be verified and certified by Assistant Development Commissioner along with the assistance of the Q 6 OA 578/2021 applicant as the initiator. On 03.07.2020, an office order issued by the 27° respondent reiterating the office order dated 05.03.2020 issued by the 2™ respondent. On 20.07.2020, an office memorandum issued by the 3° respondent alleging that inspite of the office order dated 11.11.2019 some Softex forms In SEZ online were verified In the name of the applicant and calling upon the applicant to explain his position on 21.07.2020 at 12,.05pm. The applicant received the memo on 21.07.2020 and on the same day an enquiry was conducted. In the said inquiry, prima facie case has been made out against the applicant. To initiate the detail inquiry to dig out the truth, therefore by issuing a charge memo dated 06.10.2020 the respondents have issued article of charge along with annexures to which the applicant has also submitted his detailed written statement on 27.10.2020.
7. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the matter of State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs 5. Subramaniam on 24 January, 1996, as under:
It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial reviewof the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is settled Jaw that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the court or tribunal, When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciale the evidence and would come to. its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based. on no evidence. This is consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [JT 1995 {8} SC 65], State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan [(1994) 6 SCC 302 para 7), Union of India vs. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 at para 6], Government of Tamil Nadu & Ant. vs. A. Rajapandian [(1995) 1 SCC 216 para 4] and Union of India vs. B.S. Chaturvedi [(1995) 6 SCC 749 at 759-60].7 , OA 3578/2021
This Tribunal cannot interfere in the. matter of disciplinary proceedings. It Is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not and the said. ratio has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme court, High court & this Tribunal in a-catena of judgments and orders.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this Is not a fit case to Interfere in the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant by way of charge memo dated 06.10,2020 & 12.11.2020. To dig out the truth and in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the applicant should face the inquiry by participating in the inquiry. Since the applicant is due to retire on 31.05.2023, at the most we can direct the respondents to conclude the said disciplinary proceedings against the applicant within six weeks frorn today. The applicant is also directed to co-operate In the sald inquiry. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
{}