Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Kishore Kumar Srivastava on 25 April, 2025
Author: M. R. Pathak
Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010013942022
2025:GAU-AS:5041
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/707/2022
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER
CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT
ADELPHI
119
MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD
MUMBAI- 400020.
3: THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER
CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT
ADELPHI
119
MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD
MUMBAI- 400020
VERSUS
KISHORE KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT,
PRESENTLY POSTED AS OFFICER INCHARGE, REGIONAL MANAGER
(SOUTH), CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, MANDALAY LINES, RANGE
HILLS, KHADKI, PUNE-411020.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR S CHOUDHURY, FOR CAVEATOR
Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Date of Hearing : 28.09.2023 Date of Judgment : 25.04.2025 Judgment and Order (CAV) (M. R. Pathak, J.) Heard Ms. Bijita Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sishir Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rimli Medhi, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2) In O.A. No. 040/00075/2020 preferred by the respondent herein, after hearing both the parties, i.e.,the present petitioners and the respondent, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (in short, CAT, Guwahati) by an Order dated 03.09.2021 allowed the said O.A. and set aside and quash the departmental proceeding as well as the Memorandum of Charge No. C-13019/1/ 2014-D(vigilance) dated 21.04.2017 that was issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, D (Vigilance)under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classifications, Control and Appeal), Rules 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] against the respondent herein on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable or unexplained delay of more than nine years from the year 2008 in initiation of said disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and also on the ground that the said Memorandum of Charge dated 21.04.2017 was issued on the same set of charge that has been dealt with by the learned Special Judge,Greater Mumbai
3) Aggrieved with the said Order dated 03.09.2021 passed by learned CAT, Guwahati, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
4) Fact of the case is that on being selected by the UPSC through a competitive examination the Respondent was appointed as Manager Grade-I(Central Civil Services Group A post)with effect from 25.01.1993 in the Canteen Store Department (CSD, in short),Government of India, Ministry of defence. During the course of service, by Order dated 31.12.2002, he was promoted to the post ofAssistant General Manager w.e.f. 01.01.2003.
Page No.# 3/10
5) While the petitioner was serving as Area Manager, CSD Depot, Ambala the CBI on 30.06.2012 carried out a raid at the office and residence of certain officials of the CSD at Mumbai and Ambala, including the respondent. The CBI on 03.12.2012 lodged an FIR against the respondent and two others and they were arrested. Pursuant to CBI's said FIR dated 03.12.2012,Case No. R.C. BAI/2012/A0042 was registered under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988.
6) In the meanwhile, the CBI by its letter No. DP 026 2013/3905/RC-42(A) dated 24.12.2013 asked the petitioners to initiate disciplinary action/RDA (Regular Departmental Action) against the respondent for a major penalty.
7) Because of registration of FIR dated 03.12.2012 by the CBI, the petitioner Department by an order dated 15.03.2013 placed the respondent under suspension in terms of Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965against which the respondent on 16.03.20123 filed a representation. The respondent challenged the said order of his suspension dated 15.03.213 before CAT, Chandigarh in OA-383-HR-2013. Initially on 18.03.2013 CAT, Chandigarh stayed the said order dated 15.03.213 by which the respondent was suspended from service.
8) Later, on 27.05.2014 said OA-383-HR-2013 of the respondent was disposed of by CAT, Chandigarh Branch with a direction to the present petitioners to consider and decide the pending representation of the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order and the respondent on 09.06.2014 submitted the said order dated 27.05.2013 before the petitioners as directed.
9) Thereafter, by order dated 06.08.2014 the petitioners rejected the representation of the respondent and by the said order dated 06.08.2014 again placed the respondent under suspension. Aggrieved with the said order of dated 06.08.2014 of the petitioners, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 060/00715/2014 before CAT, Chandigarh Branch.
10) After hearing the petitioners and the respondent learned CAT, Chandigarh Branch by order dated 25.11.2014 allowed the said O.A. No. 060/00715/2014 preferred by the respondent, setting aside the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the petitioners against the respondent, remitting the matter back to the petitioners to give a fresh look in the light that was observed by the said Tribunal in its said order dated 25.11.2014 and directing the petitioners to pass a reasoned speaking order in accordance with rules and law.
Page No.# 4/10
11) In the meanwhile, on completion of the investigation of its R.C.No. 42/A/2012 pursuant to its FIR dated 03.12.2012, the CBI on 21.07.2014 submitted the chargesheet under Sections 11/12 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the respondent is one of the named accused. In pursuance of the same, Special Case No. 55/2014 under Sections 11/12 of said 1988 Act was registered before the learned Special Judge (CBI), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay.
12) The respondent in said Special Case No. 55/2014 filed an application for his Discharge stating that the chargesheet dated 21.07.2014 submitted by the CBI in the case does not contain the required ingredients of Sections 11 and 12 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge (CBI), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay by order dated 15.06.2017 passed in said Special Case No. 55/2014, rejected the said Discharge application of the respondent, against which he preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 2864/2017 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
13) While the said Special Case No. 55/2014 with discharge application of the respondent was pending before the learned Special Judge (CBI), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, the petitioners on 21.04.2017 issued a Memorandum of Charge under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 asking him to submit his written statement of his defence within 10 (ten) days of receipt of the same stating as to whether he desires to be heard in person or not.
14) The statement of charge against the respondent in said Memorandum dated 21.04.2017 was--
"Shri Kishore Kumar Srivastava, Assistant General Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Mumbai, during the period from November 2008 to June 2012 availed of the services of M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited to the tune of Rs.1,98,829/-. Shri Srivastava availed of the services of vehicles and railway tickets provided by M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited for himself and the members of the family. The said Shri Srivastava was having official dealings with Shri Milind Vinayak Govlikar, Director of M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited.
By the aforesaid act on his part, Shri Kishore Kumar Srivastava, Assistant General Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Mumbai, while performing his Page No.# 5/10 duty, did not maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby has violated Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules."
15) On perusal of the chargesheet dated 30.06.2014 relating to CBI's FIR No. RC BAI/2012/A0042 dated 03.12.2012, noted above, annexed to this petition, it can be seen that charge in Special Case No. 55/2014 in said RC BAI/2012/A0042 was submitted by the CBI as that of the Memorandum of Charge dated 21.04.2017 issued by the petitioners under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
16) In the O.A. No. 060/00715/2014 that was preferred by the respondent, noted above, wherein the petitioners contested the same by filing their reply, the learned CAT, Chandigarh Branch while disposing of the said O.A. vide order dated 25.11.2014 (noted above), observed that the CBI had asked for prosecution sanction against the present respondent that had already been granted by the petitioners. In the said order dated 25.11.2014 the CAT, Chandigarh Branch also observed that the impugned order of suspension of the respondent dated 06.08.2014 was not revoked as an FIR has been registered against the respondent and he was also recommended for a suitable departmental action.
17) By the said order dated 25.11.2014 the CAT, Chandigarh Branch also observed that though the respondent was placed under suspension on 15.03.2013 which was a subject matter of O.A. No.383-HR-2013 and the Co-ordinate Bench of the said Tribunal disposed of with a direction to the present petitioners to consider the representation of the respondent by passing a speaking order and such order being passed (by order dated 06.08.2014) its legality is under challenge in O.A. No. 060/00715/2014 and during the period from 18.03.2013 till the petitioners passed the said speaking order (dated 06.08.2014), the respondent was under protection of the Court and the said order of suspension (dated 15.03.2013) was kept in abeyance. On 06.08.2014 the representation of the respondent was rejected and by another order dated 20.08.2014 he was placed under suspension with immediate effect directing him to handover the charge of the post that he was holding.
18) Further, by the said order dated 25.11.2014 the CAT, Chandigarh Branch observed about the non-application of the mind of the petitioners as there was no departmental proceedings pending against the respondent herein as yet, as neither any document was placed on record, nor Page No.# 6/10 any suggestion was made at the time of the argument of the said O.A. that the departmental proceeding was launched against the respondent by issuance of a chargesheet though almost a year was passed and the department did not chose to initiate the departmental proceeding against the respondent herein.
19) Moreover, the CAT, Chandigarh Branch in the said order dated 25.11.2014 observed that the present petitioners admitted that the respondent did not get any benefit from the supplier/firm whereas, there are other officials of the petitioners' department who also got the similar benefits which was not denied by the present petitioners in their written statement filed in the said O.A., rather the petitioners reimbursed those bills to those other officers. The Tribunal clearly indicated the present petitioners did not deny in their written statement to the averment made by the respondent that he did not get reimbursement of any bill by causing financial loss to the Government.
20) The present petitioners did not challenge the said findings dated 25.11.2014 of the learned the CAT, Chandigarh Branch before any higher forum.
21) The respondent filed the O.A. No.040/00075/2020 against the petitioners herein for the delay in issuing the said chargesheet dated 21.04.2017 by them with much delay, without explaining such delay inspite of having its knowledge and further, on the same set of charges criminal proceeding was pending against him that caused serious prejudice to him in his service career which also caused mental agony and anxiety to him as well as to his family.
22) Considering entire aspect and after hearing the parties, CAT Guwahati Bench by the impugned order 03.09.2021 set aside and quash the impugned Memorandum of chargesheet dated 21.04.2017 issued by the petitioners to the respondent.
23) The petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the charge sheet dated 21.04.2017 was issued by the petitioners after a delay of more than 9 years but it failed to appreciate that the entire incident came to the light only after CBI raided the house of the respondent in the year 2012 and that the CBI in its chargesheet on 24.07.2014 and that the CBI on 24.12.2013 advised to issue departmental chargesheet to the respondent and after obtaining necessary approval the chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 21.04.2017.
24) It is also contended by the petitioners that the CAT, Guwahati while issuing the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 did not consider the fact that whenever the integrity is in Page No.# 7/10 doubt, a departmental proceeding should not be normally quashed on the ground of delay though the petitioners were ready to conduct the departmental proceeding on a day-to-day basis so as to complete the said proceeding within six months.
25) The petitioners submitted that the respondent committed a crime under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as he availed the services from M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited for himself and the members of his family by way of payment of car hire charges, purchase of railway tickets etc., to the tune of Rs.1,98,829/- where Shri Milind Vinayak Govlikar is the Director of M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited, who as an agent of different companies supplied goods to the petitioners and though said M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited was not directly supplying any goods to the Canteen Stores Department but there are agreements between said M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited and the companies that regularly supplies goods to the Canteen Stores Department and that the respondent was having official dealing with said Shri Milind Vinayak Govlikar, the Director of M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited relating to supply of products to the Canteen Stores Department for logistic support. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 did not consider all these aspects and thereby committed illegality.
26) In support of the contention of the petitioners, Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC placed the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Md. Ibrahim reported in (2004) SCC (L&S) Page-863; V. Padmanabham Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Other reported in (2010) II SCC (L&S) Page-187; Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others reported in (2013) SCC (L&S) Page-593 and The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizabad Vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 134; Ms. Sarma, learned CGC stated that in those judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that whenever the charges are serious and relates to integrity of an officer, the delay should not be a ground for quashing the chargesheet/disciplinary proceeding.
27) Ms. Sarma, learned CGCplacing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 stated that mere delay cannot be ground for quashing the chargesheet and each case for quashing of charge sheet on the ground of delay has to be considered in its own merit.
28) Petitioners' contention is that since there is charge of corruption against the respondent therefore, the time taken from 2013 to 2017 is not a sufficient ground for quashing the Page No.# 8/10 chargesheet.
29) Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent by filing the affidavit on 19.06.2023 brought to the notice of the Court that the learned Bombay High Court by order dated 28.04.2023, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2864/2017 that was preferred by the respondent setting aside the order dated 15.06.2017 whereby the learned Special Judge (CBI), City Civil and Sessions Court rejected the discharge application of the respondent in Special Case No. 55/2014 in RC No. 42/A/2012. By the said order dated 28.04.2023 the learned Bombay High Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2864/2017 discharged the respondent from the said Special Case No. 55/2014 in RC No. 42/A/2012 invoking Sections 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the Court found that ― not a single document in the charge sheet established any amount being payable or amount being paid in favour of M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited by the Canteen Stores Department. Even if the accusation that was made those different agencies supplied their goods to M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited and who in turn, supplied it to Canteen Stores Department on commission, the prosecution failed to establish that said M/S. Sankalp Consumer Products Private Limited received any commission either from the entities with whom there was a Consultancy Agreement or at the hands of the Canteen Stores Department. The deficit material in the charge sheet would not justify in framing the charge against the present respondent under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the abatement under Section 12 of said 1988 Act.
30) In the case of Ranjeet Sing Vs. State of Haryana and Others in C.A. No. 1491/2006 decided on 30.06.2008 reported in (2008) 0 Supreme SC 2197 the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that ― inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings is a ground for quashing the enquiry unless the employer satisfactorily explains the delay. For example where the matter is referred to CBI for investigation and there is delay in getting its report or where the charge is of misappropriation and the facts leading to misappropriation come to light belatedly, it can be said that the delay is not fatal. But where the alleged misconduct was known and there was no investigation pending and when no explanation is forthcoming in regard to the delay, necessarily the unexplained delay would cause serious prejudice to the employee and therefore, enquiry will have to be quashed (State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakrishnan 1998 4 SCC 154; P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 6 SCC 636)
31) In the aforementioned paragraphs it is already pointed out that the CBI by its Page No.# 9/10 communication dated24.12.2013 has already recommended for a suitable departmental action against the respondent which the petitioners till 21.04.2017 did not initiate.
32) The CAT, Chandigarh Branch in its order dated 25.11.2014 passed in O.A. No. 060/00715/2014 observed that the petitioners did not initiate any departmental proceedings pending against the respondent, neither it placed any document on record, nor made any suggestion at the time of the argument of the said O.A. that the departmental proceeding was launched against the respondent by issuing a chargesheet to him although about a year was passed and that the department (petitioners herein) did not chose to initiate the departmental proceeding against the present respondent.
33) In spite of all these and having full knowledge of the alleged misconduct of the respondent, the petitioners only on 21.04.2017 issued the chargesheet to the respondent, but without explaining any reasons for their such delay. If the said disciplinary proceeding on the basis of such a belated chargesheet dated 21.04.2017 issued by the petitioners is allowed to continued that too in the aforesaid circumstances,we are of the view that it would cause serious prejudice to the respondent.
34) As such, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the CAT Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.040/00075/2020 have rightly quashed the enquiry initiated by Memorandum of chargesheet dated 21.04.2017 issued by the petitioners.
35) The respondent by filing an additional affidavit in this writ petition has placed before the Court that in the meanwhile the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by its Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2023 allowed his Criminal Writ Petition No. 2864/2017 (Kishorekumar Hrishikesh Srivastava
-Vs- The State of Maharashtra and Another) and set aside the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 55/2014, by which the said Special Court rejected the Discharge application of the respondent, holding that the respondent is entitled for discharge from the said Special Case No. 55/2014 invoking Sections 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Along with the said additional affidavit, the respondent has also annexed a copy of the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2864/2017 that was preferred by the respondent herein.
36) Considering the entire aspects of the matter,we are of the view that the impugned order Page No.# 10/10 dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.040/00075/2020 does not call for any interference.
37) For the reasons above this writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant