Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.B.Mohandas vs The Chief Commissioner Of Central ... on 9 April, 2010
.1.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.627/09
Friday this the 9th day of April 2010
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Mr.GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.B.Mohandas,
Superintendent of Central Excise,
Service Tax Division,
Central Excise Bhavan,
Kathrikadavu, Cochin - 17. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.C.S.G.Nair)
V e r s u s
1. The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
Kerala Zone, Central Revenue Buildings,
I.S.Press Road, Cochin - 18.
2. The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Cochin Commissionerate, Kerala Zone,
Central Revenue Buildings, I.S.Press Road,
Cochin - 18.
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
Central Excise Bhavan, Press Club Road,
Trivandrum.
4. Union of India represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC)
This application having been heard on 9th April 2010 the Tribunal on
the same day delivered the following :-
.2.
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr.GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The grievance of the applicant is that even after the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II has acquitted him under section 248(1) Cr.PC for the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, his service benefits have not been released so far on the ground that the CBI had moved an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Inspector of Central Excise, the CBI has conducted a search in his house on 4.9.1995 on the basis of an FIR filed on 1.8.1995 in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)II, Ernakulam. Thereafter, the respondents have served him with the Annexure A-1 suspension order dated 28.1.2000. He challenged the aforesaid suspension before this Tribunal vide O.A.548/01. On the assurance of the respondents that the suspension will be revoked and the applicant will be reinstated without any delay, the said OA was closed. Thereafter, the respondents have revoked his suspension vide Annexure A-2 order dated 9.7.2001 and he re-joined duty on 16.7.2001. The criminal case was finally heard on 19.5.2007 and the Hon'ble Special Judge (SPE-CBI) II, Ernakulam vide judgment dated 28.3.2007 acquitted the applicant under section 248(1) of Cr.PC after having found that he is not guilty of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section .3.
13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the applicant has submitted the Annexure A-6 representation dated 4.3.2009 requesting the respondents to grant him the service benefits including the benefits under the ACP Scheme with reasonable interest at the earliest. In reply to the said representation, the respondents have issued the Annexure A-8 letter dated 7.5.2009 stating that the Commissioner has considered his representation and decided to await the decision of the Appellate Court before releasing the withheld service benefits to him. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid stand of the respondents is unsustainable as he has been promoted as Superintendent of Central Excise during the pendency of the criminal case and the respondents have also issued the Annexure A-9 order dated 19.3.2009 granting him the financial up-gradation. He has also produced letter of the Vigilance Section of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs dated 13.10.2009 in which it is stated that no vigilance/non-vigilance cases are pending against him in that office.
3. The respondents in their reply submitted that after the acquittal of the applicant by the Special Judge (SPE-CBI) II, Ernakulam, the CBI has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the same is pending. According to them, since the proceedings have not come to an end, the orders under FR 54(B) cannot be issued before the matter is finally decided by the High Court.
.4.
4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that filing of an appeal against the order cannot be considered as a reason for denying the consequential benefits which the applicant was entitled for after he was acquitted by the Special Judge. He has also pointed out that in the absence of any stay granted by the High Court against the judgment of the Special Judge or any modification has been made to the order, the respondents were bound to release all the service benefits as if he was not suspended from service/no criminal proceedings was initiated against him. In this regard, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Daryao and others Vs. State of U.P and others (AIR 1961 SC 1457) which reads as under :-
" The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much emphasis. On general considerations of public policy there seems to be no reason why the rule of res judicata should be treated as inadmissible or irrelevant in dealing with petitions filed under Art.32 of the Constitution. It is true that the general rule can be invoked only in cases where a dispute between the parties has been referred to a court of competent jurisdiction, there has been a contest between the parties before the court, a fair opportunity has been given to both of them to prove their case and at the end the court has pronounced its judgment or decision. Such a decision pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding between the parties unless it is modified or reversed by adopting a procedure prescribed by the Constitution."
.5.
5. We have heard learned counsel Shri.C.S.G.Nair for the applicant and learned counsel Shri.Rajesh on behalf of Shri.Sunil Jacob Jose,SCGSC for the respondents. It is a settled law that once the litigation has been concluded by the competent court, the decision thereon is binding on the parties unless it is stayed/modified by the higher courts. The contention of the respondents that the prosecution proceedings is still pending against the applicant has no meaning, as the Special Judge (SPE- CBI) II, Ernakulam has already acquitted him. By merely filing an appeal against the said judgment before the High Court, the respondents are not entitled to say that the prosecution proceedings are still pending.
6. We, therefore, allow this OA and direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders under FR 54(B) and thereafter release the withheld service benefits to the applicant including the unpaid amount of ACP. However, the respondents may make it clear to the applicant that the aforesaid benefits are released to him subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the CBI before the High Court of Kerala. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 9th day of April 2010)
K.NOORJEHAN GEORGE PARACKEN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp