Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Bheemashankar Halasangi Rama vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO.3481/2009 NEW DELHI, THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH 2010 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Sh. BHEEMASHANKAR HALASANGI RAMA S/o Late Shri Rama Prabhu, R/o 101, Akshaya Apartment, 13th Cross, 11th Main, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003. Applicant. (Through Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through Secretary Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chairman Central Board of Customs and Excise, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Vigilance Officer/DG (Vigilance), Central Board of Customs and Excise, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 6th Floor, HUDCO VISHALA BUILDING, B-WING, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R.K. PURAM, New Delhi -110066. Respondents. (Through Shri R.V. Sinha, Advocate) :O R D E R: MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A):
The Memorandum of charge dated 17.02.2006, served on the Applicant, Sh. H.R. Bheemashankar, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, has been assailed in this OA on the ground that the said Memorandum has not been approved by the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Union Minister for Finance.
2. It is not in dispute that the said Memorandum dated 17.02.2006 has not been approved by the disciplinary authority, although the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the orders of the disciplinary authority.
3. This case is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal in an identical case, OA number 1434/2008, Shri S.K. Srivastava V. Secretary, Department of Revenue and others decided on 18.12.2008. The order in the aforesaid OA is reproduced below:
S.K. Srivastava, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a declaration that the impugned chargesheet dated 03.04.2006 is non-est and void ab-initio for not having been issued by disciplinary authority and in consequence of declaration, as mentioned above, the applicant seeks setting aside of enquiry being conducted by the designated enquiry officer and presenting officer having not been ordered by disciplinary authority, as the same is mandatory under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2. The short facts that may require mention at this stage for the limited controversy raised in present Original Application would reveal that the applicant was issued memorandum of chargesheet dated 03.04.2006 for holding an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour in respect of proposed enquiry has been set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge annexed as Annexure-1 with the memorandum dated 03.04.2006. At this stage, all that has been urged before us is that the charge memo dated 03.04.2006 containing articles of charge etc. was not approved by the competent authority which would be the Minster (Finance) applicant being a Class-A officer holding the post of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply.
4. We have gone through the official records produced before us so as to know as to whether any approval for issuance of the charge memo dated 03.4.2006 was accorded by the competent authority and find that even though the competent authority approved initiation of proceedings against the applicant and appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, vide order dated 03.03.2006, but the charge memo was not approved by the concerned authority. The applicant has also sought to summon the file of Ms. Harshwardhini Booty, in whose case, as per the records, the competent authority i.e. the Minister (Finance) has approved the memo of charge. For the patent illegality committed in the matter of the applicant, this Tribunal has no choice but to quash the charge memo dated 03.04.2006 with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the applicant and frame charges if the concerned competent authority may approve the charge memo. Ordered accordingly.
5. In terms of the above directions, this Original Application stands disposed of. No costs. This was followed in OA number 800/2008, Shri B.V.Gopinath V. Union of India and others and in OA number 2680/2008, Ashok Kumar Agarwal V. Union of India and others and ten other OAs disposed of by the same order dated 24.02.2010. The decision of this Tribunal has been upheld by the Honourable Delhi High Court in S.K. Srivastava (supra) and B.V. Gopinath (supra) by judgments dated 18.11.2009 in WP (C) 13223/2009 and 28.07.2009 in WP (C ) 10452/2009 respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has valiantly and somewhat vehemently argued that as per the directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 16.04.1969, the Minister has only to approve the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The relevant passage quoted in the counter affidavit reads thus:
Having regard to the Transaction of Business Rules, it is necessary that in cases where the Disciplinary Authority is the President, the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings should be approved by the Minister. It is neither here nor there. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, construed to mean that Memorandum of charge does not have to be approved by the Minister. Such an assertion would be in the teeth of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which is unambiguous. This argument is rejected.
5. For parity of reasons, we give the same directions as in S.K. Srivastava (supra). The impugned Memorandum of charge dated 17.02.2006 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents, however, would be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter by following due procedure. No costs.
(L.K. JOSHI) (V.K. BALI) VICE CHAIRMAN (A) CHAIRMAN /dkm/