Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Manoj Kumar Saini vs Revenue on 16 July, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00682/2024
Order Reserved on: 18.06.2025
Date of Order: 16.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA,
MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Sri. Manoj kumar Saini,
S/o. K.C. Saini,
Aged about 41 years,
Superintendent of Central Tax,
Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore South Commissionerate,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Raghavendra G. Gayatri)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue, in the Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Additional Director General,
Directorate General of GST Intelligence,
ajay ajay mudgal
CAT Bangalore
mudgal2025.07.18
15:58:55+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
112, Raja Ram MohanRoy Extension,
Sudhama Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 027.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax,
Queens Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. The Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore South Commissionerate,
Queens Road, Bengaluru - 560 001 ...Respondents
(By Shri K. Arvind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General, along with
Shri Sayed S. Kazi, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
In this OA, the applicant has asked for the following reliefs:
a. To call for records pertaining to the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 in reference No. GEXCOM/VIG/129/2024-VIG O/o COMMR-CGST-BENGALURU(S), passed by the 4th Respondent (vide ANNEXURE - A16).
b. To quash the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 in reference No. GEXCOM/VIG/129/2024-VIG O/o COMMR-CGST- BENGALURU (S), passed by the 4th Respondent (vide ANNEXURE - A16).
c. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant with all consequential benefits.
d. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity. The facts in nutshell are as follows:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
1. The applicant entered into services as Inspector of Central Tax by way of Direct recruitment as Group 'B' officer on 30.12.2013.
2. He was promoted on 19.03.2021, from the post of Inspector of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs to Superintendent of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Group 'B' (Gazetted). Thereafter, the applicant was then transferred to PCCO, Central Tax, and Bengaluru Zone. The Applicant was subsequently deputed for a period of 3 years to the Office of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Bangalore, vide Office order No. 118/CCA/2023 on 28.11.2023.
3. He along with some other accomplice officers entered the premises of an individual who was allegedly carrying out some illegal business including evasion of taxes of more than Rs. 50 Crores.
4. On the basis of certain information received from these people who according to the applicant, were indulging in illegal business, the applicant was suspended by an order dated 10th September 2024.
Also a criminal case was registered against him on 09.09.2024 vide FIR in Cr.NO.0231/2024 under sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 3(5), 308(2) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 at Baiyyappanahalli Police Station. On the same day the applicant was repatriated to PCCO (CGST) Zone, Bangalore to ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Bangalore South Office during the period of suspension. He was arrested and subsequently released on bail on 04.10.2024.
5. On 8th November 2024, the Respondents passed an order inflicting a major penalty of Dismissal from Service on him under Article 311 (2).
6. The applicant has approached this Tribunal, through this OA asking for the reliefs mentioned as above.
7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that throughout, the applicant had an outstanding professional record. Due to his exceptional performance and considering his good service and seniority, he was promoted from Inspector of Central Tax to Superintendent of Central Tax in about seven years, i.e. on March 2021. That his service record is outstanding is reflected from the very high grades he has got in his APARs. The entire APAR so also the action of the Respondents-Department to either promoting the Applicant as and when the vacancy has arisen or sending him of deputation to the Intelligence Department reflects his highest degree of honesty and integrity of the Applicant as the Applicant has consistently excelled in carrying out his office duties. These APARs are mentioned as below:-
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE S. No. APAR Period Rating/Grade
1. 01.04.2020 to 9.1/10 20.09.2020 2. 21.09.2020 to 09/10 31.03.2021
3. 02.12.2021 to 9.4/10 31.03.2022
4. 27.06.2022 to 9.94/10 31.03.2023 Likewise, the officers who accompanied the applicant also had outstanding career records. One of them has a blemish free career record of over 30 years.
8. While working in the office of the Director General of GST Intelligence, the main work of the Applicant was to gather information from the various business activities regarding evasion of GST taxes and collect such materials covertly to detect the evasion of taxes. Since the nature of the Applicant was related to Intelligence operations, he had to ensure complete confidentiality, and therefore on several occasions, he was required not to even create any particular ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE file or take approval. The collection of information and material for evasion of GST taxes mainly depends upon the unofficial informers and other persons whose details are not brought on record.
9. It is further stated that based on specific information the applicant and three other accomplice officers had visited the Aishwarya Residency on 30th August 2024, to meet an informer, regarding the illegal business and evasion of taxes of more than ₹50 Crores by certain individuals associated with Varjar Creations Pvt. Ltd. Regarding this visit by the applicant, he had kept his higher superiors informed.
10. It is stated that following their visit, the applicant and his three other accomplice officers were to take necessary follow-up action on the documents and materials which they had secured during their visit. However, before the applicant could take the required action, a complaint was lodged against him on 9th September 2024 at the Baiyyappanahalli Police Station Vide Cr.No.0231/2024.
11. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, it was a false complaint which was lodged by these tax evaders to avoid embarrassment and prosecution by the applicant. It was alleged in the complaint that four individuals were dragged out of their house, kept under confinement, assaulted and put under threat of death to extort ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE ₹3 Crores. According to the FIR, lodged against him, the applicant and his accomplices received a ransom money of ₹1.5 Crores.
12. Based on the FIR lodged by these people, the applicant was arrested on 10.09.2024. Further the applicant filed the CrL.Misc.No. 9008/2024, seeking bail under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, passed an order on 04.10.2024, and subsequently he was granted bail on 04.10.2024, in Crl.Misc.No. 9008/2024, enlarged the petitioner on bail on his execution personal bond of sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solved surety to the satisfaction of the Court. Afterwards, the applicant was put under suspension on 11th September 2024. The applicant was dismissed from service by the order dated 8th November 2024 by the 4th respondent.
13. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the order of dismissal was passed by the 4th respondent by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ved MITTAL Gill Vs. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 86, by concluding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry.
14. Stating that the Order of Dismissal passed by the respondents on the applicant was arbitrary, illegal, and against the principal of Natural Justice and in violation of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Court of India etc., the learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and anr Vs. Tulasiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 and Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 581 the position of which is upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Niwas Gupta v. State of Bihar, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 153 and Union of India v. Ram Bahadur Yadav, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 389. He argues that no reasons were given in the impugned order for dispensing with the conduct of disciplinary enquiry. According to him, this order of dismissal was contrary to the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1991) 1 SCC 362, in which para 5 is held as follows:-
'5. The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.' It is also against the principles of Natural Justice. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.-(1) No person who is a member of a service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
[(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges [x x x x x]:
2[Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall not apply.-
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person shall be final.]"
The Clause (b) of the proviso, speaks about non-applicability of the Clause (2) referred supra, to dismiss or remove a Government Servant which the authorities are empowered to do post satisfaction for some reason to be recorded by the authority in writing, clearly stating that, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry.
15. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the 4th respondent has not assigned any reasons or justification for not conducting the enquiry, except for mentioning about the registration of a Criminal Case and the allegations of criminal misconduct. He asserts that the respondents have failed to justify as to why it was not possible to conduct the disciplinary enquiry and have not given any reasons for dispensing with the same. In this regard, he has also invited our attention to Rule 19, which, according to him was not complied with by the respondents. Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, reads as follows:-
"Rule 19 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which provides for special provisions in certain cases wherein, the regular Departmental Enquiry is not ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE warranted in such exceptional cases, Rule 19 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is as follows:
"19. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the Interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause
(i) Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary (and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of of representing against the advice of the Commission,] [within the time-limit specified in clause (b) ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of sub-rule (3) of rule 15) before any orders are made in any case under this rule."
Under the Rule 19 of the above referred Rules, the Government of India issued certain guidelines by detailing the illustrative scenarios under which the provision can be effected to and has referred the same in the provision which reads as under -
a) Where civil servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or
b) Where the civil servant by himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the Disciplinary authority or members of his family so that the officer is afraid to hold the inquiry or directly to be held; or
c) Where an atmosphere of violence over of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails at the time the attempt to hold the inquiry is made."
16. The learned counsel for the applicant asserts that what was mentioned in the FIR were false allegations, which were levied by individuals who were themselves under radar for illegal activities. Merely basing upon such allegations, the action taken against the applicant was extremely harsh, improper, and irregular particularly as he was an employee of the Intelligence department, and he was supposed to work on credible inputs provided by informers. He says that the Order of Dismissal was based on assumptions, presumptions, ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE surmises & conjectures, and this subjective satisfaction of the respondents was not based upon any objective criteria. In this regard, the counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in {2006) 13 SCC 581} in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12, which reads as under:-
10. It is now a well-settled principle of law that a constitutional right conferred upon a delinquent cannot be dispensed with lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motive or merely in order to avoid the holding of an enquiry. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through certain documents for the purpose of showing that ultimately the police on investigation did not find any case against the appellant in respect of the purported FIR lodged against him under Section 377 IPC. However, it may not be necessary for us to go into the said question.
11. We have noticed hereinbefore that the formal enquiry was dispensed with only on the ground that the appellant could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threatening and other means. No material has been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before us to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. It is further evident that the said order of ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE dismissal was passed, inter alia, on the ground that there was no need for a regular departmental enquiry relying on or on the basis of a preliminary enquiry.
However, if a preliminary enquiry could be conducted, we fail to see any reason as to why a formal departmental enquiry could not have been initiated against the appellant. Reliance placed upon such a preliminary enquiry without complying with the minimal requirements of the principle of natural justice is against all canons of fair play and justice. The appellate authority, as noticed hereinbefore, in its order dated 24-6-1998 jumped to the conclusion that he was guilty of grave acts of misconduct proving complete unfitness for police service and the punishment awarded to him is commensurate with the misconduct although no material therefor was available on record. It is further evident that the appellate authority also misdirected himself in passing the said order insofar as he failed to take into consideration the relevant facts and based his decision on irrelevant factors.
12. Even the Inspector General of Police in passing his order dated 26-11-1999, despite having been asked by the High Court to pass a speaking order, did not assign sufficient or cogent reason. He, like the appellate authority, also proceeded on the basis that the appellant was guilty of commission of offences which are grave and heinous in nature and bring a bad name to the police force of the State on the whole. None of the authorities mentioned hereinbefore proceeded on the relevant material for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE that in the facts and circumstances of the case sufficient cause existed for dispensing with the formal enquiry. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [(1991) 1 SCC 362:
1991 SCC (L&S) 282: (1991) 15 ATC 729: AIR 1991 SC 385] wherein relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court, inter alia, in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398: 1985 SCC (L&S) 672: 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131], it was held:
(Jaswant Singh case [(1991) 1 SCC 362 : 1991 SCC (LSsS) 282 : (1991) 15 ATC 729:AIR 1991 SC385], SCCp. 368,para4) "Although Clause (3) of that article makes the decision of the disciplinary authority in this behalf final such finality can certainly be tested in a court of law and interfered with if the action is found to be arbitrary or mala fide or motivated by extraneous considerations or merely a ruse to dispense with the inquiry."
17. The learned counsel for the applicant further asserts that not an iota of proof or material has been examined or put on record to justify the dismissal. He states that the applicant had visited the house of the persons as part of his duty. Not even the minimum courtesy of asking for the explanation of the applicant was shown by the Respondent No. 4, before issuing the Order of Dismissal. In this regard, he brings the following judgement into our notice:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "1. In the case of Union of India and anr Vs. Tulasiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, para 131-134 is held as follows:-
"131. It was submitted that where a delinquent government servant so terrorizes the disciplinary authority that neither that officer nor any other officer stationed at that place is willing to hold the inquiry, some senior officer can be sent from outside to hold the inquiry. This submission itself shows that in such a case the holding of an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. It would be illogical to hold that the administrative work carried out by senior officers should be paralysed because a delinquent government servant either by himself or along with or through others makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable.
132. It is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated against a government servant. Such a situation can also come into existence subsequently during the course of an inquiry, for instance, after the service of a charge-sheet upon the government servant or after he has filed his written statement thereto or even after evidence has been led in part. In such a case also the disciplinary authority would be entitled to apply clause (b) of the second proviso because the word "inquiry" in that clause includes part of an inquiry. It would also not be reasonably practicable to afford to the government servant an opportunity of hearing or further hearing, as the case may be, when at the commencement of the inquiry or pending it the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE government servant absconds and cannot be served or will not participate in the inquiry. In such cases, the matter must proceed ex parte and on the materials before the disciplinary authority. Therefore, even where a part of an inquiry has been held and the rest is dispensed with under clause (b) or a provision in the service rules analogous thereto, the exclusionary words of the second proviso operate in their full vigour and the government servant cannot complain that he has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank in violation of the safeguards provided by Article 311(2).
133. The second condition necessary for the valid application of clause (b) of the second proviso is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a constitutional obligation and if such reason is not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional.
134. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry must precedeorde order imposing the penalty. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore, find a place in the final order. It would be usual to record the reason separately and then consider the question of the penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in order to avoid the allegation that the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars, but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso. For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Sometimes a situation may be such that it is not reasonably practicable to give detailed reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. This would not, however, per se invalidate the order. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and circumstances."
18. The learned counsel for the applicant also avers that the factual matrix of the case of Ved MITTAL Gill Vs. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 86, was very different from the present case. In that case the charged officer was directly involved in a conspiracy for facilitating escape of under trial terrorists of Babbar Khalsa International. He asserts that, on the contrary, in this case the respondents, have failed to satisfy the Triple Test which were laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the valid invocation of Clause (B) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which are as follows:-
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "Firstly, the conduct of delinquent employee should be such as it would justify one of the three punishments namely dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, secondly, the satisfaction of the Competent Authrority, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, thirdly, the Competent Authority must record reasons of the above satisfaction in writing."
19. The learned counsel for the applicant says that the Order of Dismissal was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the procedure of conducting Disciplinary Proceedings was not followed. To press his points he draws our attention to the following rulings and cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-
1. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 389, the Apex Court in para 14 has held as follow:-
"14. It is a settled legal position that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the Rule strictly. Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner, ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE unless there are compelling and valid reasons. The dismissal order dated 22-10-1998 does not indicate any reason for dispensing with inquiry except stating that the respondent had colluded with the other Head Constable for theft of non-judicial stamp papers. By merely repeating the language of the Rule in the order of dismissal, will not make the order valid one, unless valid and sufficient reasons are recorded to dispense with the inquiry. When the rule mandates recording of reasons, the very order should disclose the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry."
Further para 16 is held as follow;
"16.The very fact that they have conducted confidential inquiry, falsifies the stand of the appellants that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The words "not reasonably practicable" as used in the Rule, are to be understood in a manner that in a given situation, ordinary and prudent man should come to conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not practicable. In the present case, there appears no valid reason to dispense with inquiry and to invoke Rule 161 of the Rules. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court."
2. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd and another Vs. Jahan Khan reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88, clearly held that, if the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is passed ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE without conducting any Departmental Enquiry, the same is perse illegal, being violative of principles of natural justice.
3. In the case of Union of India v. R. Reddappa, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 269, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated in para No. 5 as under:-
"5. More than a decade has gone by since these employees were dismissed for participating in strike called by the Union recognised by the Railways. But end has not reached. Barring appellate and revisional authority whose discretion too was attempted to be curtailed by issuing circular no court or tribunal has found the orders to be well founded on merits. True the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 or the tribunal is not as wide as it is in appeal or revision but once the court is satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness then the restriction, self-imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule or technicality on exercise of power, can stand in way of rendering justice. We are not impressed by the vehement submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the CAT, Hyderabad exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the finding that there was no material in support of the finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 14(ii) was dependent on existence of this primary fact. If there was no material on which any reasonable person could have come to the conclusion as is envisaged in the rule then the action was vitiated due to erroneous ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE assumption of jurisdictional fact therefore the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to set aside the orders on this ground. An illegal order passed by the disciplinary authority does not assume the character of legality only because it has been affirmed in appeal or revision unless the higher authority is found to have applied its mind to the basic infirmities in the order. Mere reiteration or repetition instead of adding strength to the order renders it weaker and more vulnerable as even the higher authority constituted under the Act or the rules for proper appraisal shall be deemed to have failed in discharge of its statutory obligation."
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259 in paragraph No. 12 to 15 reads as under:-
"12. Therefore, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It is, thereby, conclusively held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
13. In Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] this Court held that right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood received protective umbrella under the canopy of Articles 14 and 21 etc. All matters relating to employment include the right to continue in service till the employee reaches superannuation or until his service is duly terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Constitution and the rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or the statutory provisions or the rules, regulations or instructions having statutory flavour. They must be conformable to the rights guaranteed in Parts III and IV of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees right to life which includes right to livelihood, the deprivation thereof must be in accordance with just and fair procedure prescribed by law conformable to Articles 14 and 21 so as to be just, fair and reasonable and not fanciful, oppressive or at vagary. The principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Article 14. Any law made or action taken by an employer must be fair, just and reasonable.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE The power to terminate the service of an employee/workman in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Article 14 strikes at arbitrary action. It is not the form of the action but the substance of the order that is to be looked into. It is open to the Court to lift the veil and gauge the effect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. Fair play is to secure justice, procedural as well as substantive. The substance of the order is the soul and the effect thereof is the end result.
14. It is thus well-settled law that right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic inquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry offended Article 14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
15. In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no inquiry was held. The appellant's plea put forth at the earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980 and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty he was prevented from reporting to duty, nor was he permitted to sign the attendance register. The Tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in this behalf. It concluded that the management had power under Clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders to terminate with the service of the appellant. Therefore, we hold that the principles of natural justice must be read into the Standing Order No. 13(2)(iv). Otherwise it would become arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14. When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice."
20. The learned counsel for the applicant has concluded by stating that by passing this Order of Dismissal, the respondents have denied the protection given to the applicant under Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, violated the Rules of Article 311 read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules of 1965, and hence requested the Tribunal to quash this order.
21. The Respondents have filed the reply. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, a Criminal complaint FIR was registered in Cr.No.0231/2024 under sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 3(5), 308(2) and 319(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Baiyyappanahalli Police Station on 09.09.2024 on the basis of a written complaint filed by Shri Keshav Tak, against the applicant and three accomplice officers. The Police immediately took up investigation in the case and based on the incident report from ADG, DGGI dated 10.09.2024, Remand Order dated 11.09.2024, Remand Application dated 11.09.2024 and the Status Report dated 04.10.2024 received from the police authorities it is established that on 30.08.2024, that the applicant and his three accomplices from DGGI unit had indulged in serious criminal activities, which included impersonation as ED & GST officers, abduction of certain individuals for ransom, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, extortion of money, criminal assault, etc.. The Central Crime Branch Bangalore, during the course of investigation, seized large amount of incriminating material including cheque-books, laptops, mobile phones, and seals which were used in the commission of these crimes. According to the investigation carried out, a demand of ₹3 Crores was made of which ₹1.5Crores was paid to the applicant and his accomplices, including Rs. 1.1 Crores transacted through Hawala Transaction. The CCB established that ₹1.1 crores was transferred through Hawala network alone, which was received by two informers of these officers on 2 September 2024. Out of this ₹1.1 crores, ₹60 lakhs were given to the Shri Abhishek Kumar and Intelligence officer ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE & his accomplice Ms. Sonali Sahay of which ₹57 lakhs was recovered by CCB from their friends and relatives.
22. The learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the averments of the applicant in para 5 at Pg. No. 9 and 10 of the O.A. He sought to pin down the applicant through the contentions, he has made in the O.A itself. In this regard, he stated the following:-
A. The applicant has himself admitted that he, along with three other officers, had entered the premises in Aishwarya Residency of the complainants, on certain information that he and his colleagues in the company, were indulging in tax evasion and illegal business. However, the learned counsel for the Respondents pointed out that while the applicant has stated that he had informed his higher officers, he has failed to provide the name/s of even a single superior, or higher officer to whom he allegedly gave intimation/took permission. He has not provided even minimum details nor mentioned the place and date/time when he met his superiors or contacted them, informed them and taken permission. He has also failed to mention regarding the mode by which the alleged permission was taken; whether the permission was taken through physical interaction or on telephonic/electronic means. Not even elementary details are provided by the applicant in this regard.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE He points out that failure to inform and take permission from the superiors, who should be at least of the rank of Joint Commissioner, for carrying out any search/seizure is violation of the statutory provisions given in Chapter 14 of the GST Manual. This clearly shows that the assertion of the applicant is totally false and mischievous.
B. While the applicant mentions that the case was under
investigation, absolutely no document or record is furnished regarding this case, which was supposedly under investigation.
The applicant has also not been able to provide any grounds or reasons or material, on the basis of which the applicant concluded that there was criminal case against the complainant and that, the latter had prima facie, committed evasion of taxes.
C. The learned counsel for respondents has made a clear distinction between 'impracticable' and 'reasonably not practicable'. Orders were passed under Article 311 as it was felt that it was 'not reasonably practicable' to conduct the enquiry.
D. He has also pointed out that the applicant was placed under suspension vide Order of Suspension dated 10.09.2024 vide File No. DGGI/CONF/DE/9/2024-DD/AD-II/4531/24. The Order of Suspension was issued on 11th September 2024 while the Dismissal Order was issued on 8th November 2024. There ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE was a lapse of around two months between the two orders which indicates that the Dismissal Order was passed after considerable thought and due deliberations, and was based on adequate material, collected during this period and made available to the disciplinary authority, to enable correct decision-making.
23. He states that based on the material available, the applicant was initially put under suspension vide Order of Suspension dated 10.09.2024 vide File No. DGGI/CONF/DE/9/2024-DD/AD- II/4531/24. Subsequently, in the exercise of the power conferred by Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1965 the Commissioner, CGST, passed a detailed Order GEXCOM/VIG/129/2024-VIG-O/o dated 08.11.2024 vide COMMR-CGST-BENGALURU(S) dismissing the applicant from the post of Senior Intelligence Officer, presently posted at DGGI Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Bengaluru (on deputation), in respect of Criminal Offense is under investigation., for conducting an unauthorized search operation by trespassing onto the property of the complainant. The Dismissal Order was passed in view of the available prima facie evidence of serious breach of the standards of conduct prescribed under Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964).
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
24. The learned counsel for the respondents says that the Applicant was dismissed by invoking Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 'Dismissal from service' is classified as a 'Major Penalty' under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 14 provides for a general procedure to be followed by the Dismissing Authority while imposing any major penalty specified under Rule 11 sub-rule (v) to (ix). The Disciplinary Authority, if satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, states that if it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner contemplated under Rule 14, it may proceed to dismiss the delinquent employee without holding an enquiry.
25. The Counsel for the respondents continues that the applicant had an administrative remedy under Rule 23(ii) to prefer an Appeal against his Dismissal Order to the Appellate Authority as specified under Rule 24. As per the CBEC Order No. F.No. C-11016/2/2007- Ad.V dated 13.07.2010, an Appeal against the Order of Dismissal (dated 08.11.2024), as passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate, Bengaluru, for the applicant lies with the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru Zone, as he is the notified competent Appellate Authority. Hence, this Application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for bypassing the Appellate remedy provided under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant decided not to go in appeal to the Appellate and Revisional Authority as provided under the rules and ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 31 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE chose to directly file this O.A in the Tribunal. Hence, his application is not maintainable and should be dismissed by the Tribunal as he has not exhausted other remedies available. In this regard, he cites section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 which reads as follows:
"Section 20, Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies are exhausted.
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances."
26. Part- VII, Rules 22 to 28 make provision for preferring an Appeal against any Order passed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therein, Rule 23 (ii) provides that, a government servant may prefer an Appeal against an Order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 made by the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant extract of the said Rule reads as follows:
23. Orders Against Which Appeal Lies:
Subject to the provisions of rule 22, a government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely: -
(i) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under rule 10;
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 32 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 11, whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or revising authority;
Sub-rule (1) Rule 24 provides that a government servant may prefer an Appeal against all or any of the Orders specified in Rule 23 to the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President.
The Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, by an Order dated 13.07.2010, has specified with the approval of the President the authorities mentioned in the table therein as the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority for Grade 'B' posts in CBEC. The said table stipulates that for a Group 'B' officer, the 'Commissioner' shall be the 'Disciplinary Authority' competent to pass a Dismissal Order and against such an Order an Appeal shall lie to the 'Chief Commissioner' who shall be the 'Appellate Authority'.
27. The learned counsel for the respondents places on record a few judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in support of his argument which are as follows:
1. In Hanumanthappa Krishnappa Mikali v. State of Karnataka, 2006 SCC OnLine Kar 999 the Hon'ble High Court ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 33 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE of Karnataka while placing the reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with the view taken by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal holding that 'it does not call for any interference by the Court under Article 226 and has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the dismissed employee who had filed an Application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal without filing any Appeal provided under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
2. In S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ((1989) 4 SCC
582): (AIR 1990 SC 10) a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"15. In several States the Conduct Rules for Government servants require the administrative remedies to be exhausted before the disciplinary orders can be challenged in Court. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides:
"20(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances."
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 34 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
16. The Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings to provide for an appeal against the orders of punishment imposed on public servants. Some Rules provide even a second appeal or a revision. The purport of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to give effect to the Disciplinary Rules and the exhaustion of the remedies available thereunder is a condition precedent to maintaining of claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Administrative Tribunals have been set up for Government servants of the Centre and several States have already set up such Tribunals under the Act for the employees of the respective States. The law is soon going to get crystallized on the line laid down under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act."
Therefore, it is an established principle of law that the Hon'ble Tribunal cannot entertain the present Application as the remedy of the Applicant lies only before the Appellate Authority as provided under the Rule 24 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with the CBEC Order bearing F.No. C-11016/2/2007-Ad.V dated 13.07.2010.
28. He argues, that in this regard, the case citation of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88, relied upon by the applicant to justify invoking the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal is not relevant to the case at hand. Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed the issue of exercise of the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 35 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE discretionary jurisdiction by High Courts to Judicially Review the Orders of the Tribunals subordinate to it.
29. He sums up this particular issue by stating that since the applicant had not exhausted all the remedies available to him as per the Act and the CCS Rules, his application should be dismissed in accordance with section 20 of the Central Administrative Act, 1985.
30. The learned counsel for the respondents further points out that the applicant, along with his three accomplices, had committed acts of extreme moral turpitude. Their criminal acts seriously undermine the sanctity and authority of the Central Tax Department and the Government of India and created an atmosphere of distrust and fear among the general public. Accordingly, the dismissal order was issued which was in compliance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved MITTAL Gill vs. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 86, and totally satisfies the Triple Test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He asserts that the details of the conformity with the Triple Test have been clearly enunciated in the Dismissal Order itself. The counsel for the respondents points out that the applicant had kept his superiors completely in the dark and had not taken any permission whatsoever, nor given any intimation to them regarding the conduct of this operation. Furthermore, as Superintendent of Division Six of ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 36 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Bangalore South Commissionerate, the applicant had no business to associate himself with the officers of the DGGI, for which also, he had neither taken any permission nor given intimation to his superiors.
31. The learned counsel for the applicant had subsequently filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the counsel had brought out the following points:-
1. Responding to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant had not informed his higher officers regarding the said operation conducted on 30 August 2024, the learned counsel for the respondents states that applicant was working to assist Respondent No.2 for collection of information. In his defence, he cites certain extracts of the Central Excise Intelligence and Investigation Manual published by Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (Now Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax intelligence) in 2004, which mentions as under:-
"6. Intelligence activities are generally confidential. The conduct or use of intelligence involves secrecy. If an action does not involve secrecy and is told and/or is known to everyone, then certainly it is not an intelligence. Any information collected from the newspaper or magazine is not and cannot be called an intelligence. It is an information ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 37 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE which is open to all. However, if the same is verified, analysed, processed and an "intelligence product" for action emerges, only then it becomes an intelligence. The element of secrecy is fundamental to the intelligence. Therefore, secrecy and 'need-to-know' principle is observed throughout the chain of activity leading to an intelligence product. The intelligence organizations practice the concept of compartmentalization and segregation of sub units to achieve this."
2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that such operations are kept confidential and their details are confined to only those officers who are handling the operation and hence there was no need for the applicant to inform his superiors in such a sensitive matter. The entire operation was at a very sensitive stage and before it could reach the point where searches made and other consequential legal processes could be brought on record, the employees of the company, against whom the applicant was proceeding on grounds of tax evasion, lodged the FIR to preempt proper follow-up action by the applicant, which would have exposed their misdeeds.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant further states that there are material differences between the relevant paras of the ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 38 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE judgement in the case of Ved MITTAL Gill Vs. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 86, and the present case. He argues that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant would have threatened, intimidated or terrorised the witnesses is without any basis; and is simply assumptions based on conjectures and surmises of the respondents, which have no substance at all.
32. In response to the rejoinder filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents filed their surrejoinder. The surrejoinder is essentially on the same lines as the reply. He points out that as per the laid down SOPs, the applicant was required to take written permission for carrying out any search & seizure, which he failed to do. He vehemently refutes the assertion of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had carried out this operation during the course of his performance of duties. According to him, he had neither taken permission nor given intimation regarding the conduct of this operation. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondents has further highlighted the gravity and heinousness of the acts of applicant and his accomplices that undermined the sanctity and credibility and the very authority of the Central Tax department as an institution. He averred that the act of moral turpitude exhibited by the applicant was of extreme nature, ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 39 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE which bordered on terrorizing the public. It had the potential to create an atmosphere of mistrust between the Government and the Taxpayer. He reiterated that the Dismissal Order was issued strictly in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Ved Mitter Gill v. UT, Chandigarh, (2015) 8 SCC 86.
32.1 According to him, the Order of Dismissal was issued under section 19(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1965 read with sub- clause (b) of the second proviso to the clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is a detailed & reasoned order delineating the reasons for dismissal at length and for dispensing with the conduct of enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
32.2 The learned counsel for the respondents cited a few instances where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted that the inquiry can be dispensed with. These include instances where the Hon'ble Court held that the Government servants, particularly through or together with their associates, so terrorise, threaten or intimidate witnesses who are likely to give evidence against them with fear of reprisal, that it deters the witnesses from giving testimony. Another instance where it would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry is where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 40 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE insubordination prevails, and it is immaterial whether the government servant concerned is or is not a party to bringing about such an atmosphere.
32.3 He submits that a detailed review of the material available including the FIR, the report of the investigation officer, the remand application, the proceedings of the Hon'ble Magistrate's Court etc., clearly indicate that the applicant along with his accomplices so threatened, intimidated & terrorised the employees of M/s Mexo Solutions that they parted with huge sums of money which was delivered to them. Having undergone such a traumatic experience, these employees would not be in a position to depose and give evidence against the applicant without fear. A terrorized, threatened and intimidated witness will always fear for his life and would not be in a position to depose truthfully.
32.4 According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the investigation conducted by the police had unearthed several crucial evidences in the case. Several cheque books, laptops, mobile phones, seals, and other things were seized from one of the accused officers. Further, the money trail has also been established in the case and over Rs. 1crore has been recovered by the CCB, Bengaluru from the relatives and friends of applicant.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 41 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 32.5 Further, the Office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka (Police Department), Bengaluru had requested for prior permission for launching prosecution pursuant to Section 218 of the BNSS, 2023, and the Police had informed that the actions of the applicant constitute offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 198, 204, 308(2) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. Consequently, after fully and carefully examining the records furnished by Police including FIR, statements of witness, PF of the properties seized, voluntary statements of the accused and other relevant material/facts of the FIR, and clear indication from the Police that during investigation, the charges against the accused were being established beyond doubt, this decision was taken.
33. The learned counsel for the respondents have later on brought to our notice that the Police have already filed the Charge Sheet on 6th January 2025, against the accused under sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 198, 204, 308(2) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. The details of these sections are as follows:-
Section 115(2):
Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-section (1) of section 122 voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 42 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 126(2):
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both Section 127(2):
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 140(2):
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 198:
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 204:
Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 43 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Section 308(2):
Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 61(1):
When two or more persons agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done--
(a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance, thereof.
34. Furthermore, lot of incriminating material was seized during the course of investigation, as per the charge sheet. This include, but is not limited to Rs. 25 Lakhs cash converted into gold, Rs. 57 Lakhs in cash, 10 Mobile phone of which 4 were I-phones of different models, 2 hard drives of 1GB and 1TB, 1 pen drive of 8 GB and 1 Memory card of 32 GB, 2 Cars, 2 laptops, and 1 DVR etc,.
35. Finally, the learned counsel for the respondents emphatically reiterates that the Dismissal Order dated 08.11.2024 has discussed each and every test as laid down in the judgement and fully justified the test for invocation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and dismissing an employee without inquiry and hence, the O.A should be dismissed.
36. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned counsels for the applicant and respondents.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 44 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the CCS (CCA) rules etc., which were brought on record by the respective counsels. Based on the material made available to us, the following facts are established:-
A. The averment of the learned counsel for the Applicant that, what was mentioned in the FIR, were merely allegations by individuals who were themselves under cloud for illegal activities, including tax evasion, is rejected. Nothing has been brought on record in the form of any type of document to indicate that the complainants or his colleagues were facing any enquiry or investigation for evasion of taxes or any type of illegal activity.
B. On the contrary, huge amount of material has been brought on record by the Investigating Agencies which have substantiated the contents of the FIR. The seizure of ₹57 lakhs in cash, ₹25 lakhs converted into gold, large number of mobile phones etc., clearly point out to the culpability of the applicant.
C. Furthermore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Order of Dismissal is based on surmises & conjectures, and is not backed or substantiated by any strong evidence is also totally contrary to the mountain of evidence ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 45 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE that has been adduced against the applicant. Some of the documents which point towards the culpability of the applicant include:
i. The Incident Report of ADG, DGGI dated 10th September 2024.
ii. The Remand Order dated 11th September 2024.
iii. The Status Report dated 4th October 2024.
iv. The above mentioned material on record were sufficient to establish the culpability of the applicant.
v. It is further reinforced by the fact that, later on, a comprehensive Charge Sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency under sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 198, 204, 308(2) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. The Charge Sheet, interalia, include the statements of large number of Principal witnesses and several Seizure Panchnamas, indicating details of seizures as mentioned above, which clearly point to the involvement of the applicant in this horrendous crime/s.
37. Furthermore, the contention of the learned counsel for applicant that the Dismissal Order does not meet the Triple test as prescribed by ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 46 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgement of Ved Mitter Gill v. UT, Chandigarh, (2015) 8 SCC 86, is also not found to be correct as per the material brought on record by the counsel for the Respondents. It is seen that the Dismissal Order dated 8th November 2024, has very clearly and category discussed each and every test as laid down in the judgment Supra and fully justified the Triple Test for invocation of article 311 (2).
38. For balance of convenience, the relevant portions of the Order of Dismissal, dated 8th November 2024, are reproduced as below:
"Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments include Ved Mitter Gill v. UT, Chandigarh, (2015) 8 SCC 86 laid down the following tests to be satisfied for invocation of Clause (b) to the second provision under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and dismissing an employee without inquiry:
Firstly, that the conduct of the delinquent employee should be such as would justify one of the three punishments, namely, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Secondly, the satisfaction of the competent authority, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, the competent authority must record the reasons of the above satisfaction in writing.
Whether the tests laid down in the case of Ved Mitter Gill v. UT, Chandigarh, [(2015) 8 SCC 86] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court applies to the case of Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini is discussed in the following paragraphs:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 47 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
1. First Test: Whether the conduct of the delinquent employee is such that it would justify one of the three conditions, namely dismissal, removal or reduction in rank;
The provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 applies to all the employees of the Government, and as such, it applies to the delinquent employee concerned. Rule 3 of the said Rules stipulates certain standards of conduct to be maintained by the Government Servants. Some of the standards of conduct under Rule 3(1) are as follows:
(i) Maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) Maintain devotion to duty;
(ii) Do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant;
(iv) Maintain high ethical standards and honesty; (V) Promote the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties;
(vi) Maintain accountability and transparency;
(vii) Maintain responsiveness to the public;
(viii) Maintain courtesy and good behavior with the public;
(ix) Take decisions solely in public interest and use or cause to use public resources efficiently, effectively and economically;
(x) Not misuse his position as civil servant and not take decision in order to derive financial or material benefits for himself, his family or his friends;
(xi) Refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices;
(xii) Perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 48 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE On careful review of the various material records that have come into existence pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No. 231/2024 dated 09.09.2024, the following facts emerge:
(i) Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini being an officer of the Office of the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) associated himself with an officers from the Bengaluru South CGST Commissionerate. In discharge of his duties as the Senior Intelligence Officer posted at DGGI, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Bengaluru, Shri. Manoj Kumar Saini was not at all required to either contact or associate himself with officers of the DGGI, particularly, without obtaining the prior approval of his higher officers.
(ii) Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini, along with the other aforesaid officers, went to the residential premises of one Shri Keshav Tak in GM Palya, who is an employee of M/s Mexo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, along with the said Shri Keshav Tak, Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini and other officers went to the office premises of Mis Mexo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. at Jeevan Bhima Nagar.
(iii) Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini, was arrested on 10.09.2024 andhe was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter he was remanded to the judicial custody.
(iv) Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini was arrested on 10.09.2024 and he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter he was remanded to the judicial custody.
(v) There are various other allegations made in the FIR against Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini and the other officers. The said allegations indicate commission of serious offences like ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 49 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, abduction of person with threat to cause hurt/death for ransom, extortion, cheating by impersonation, etc. While it would be matter of Trial before the Hon'ble Court to establish whether Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini is guilty of having committed the aforesaid offences, there are some prima facie, undeniable and established facts, that would clearly violate the standard of conduct that are laid down under Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. It is a fact that Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini contacted and associated with officers of the Office of DGGI, although he was neither required to do so, nor had he sought any permission. Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini has also visited the office premises of M/s Mexo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and visited the residence of one its employee, projecting that he and other officers are conducting a search and seizure proceedings in accordance with the law. However, in order to conduct any such search and seizure proceedings. Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini was required to obtain prior approval from his Superiors. Without obtaining any such approval and by abandoning his regular duties, Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini had proceeded to visit the premises of M/s Mexo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the residence of one of its employee. These facts. prima facie indicates that Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini was not devoted to discharge his duties and had oblique intentions to abuse his position as a government servant by associating himself with officers of another office.
While the issue of whether or not he is guilty of all the aforesaid offences is a matter of trial, the aforesaid facts clearly indicate a serious violation of all the standards of conduct that are ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 50 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE denoted above. To elaborate further, Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini has failed to maintain absolute integrity; has failed to devote to his duties; has committed acts that are unbecoming of a government servant; has failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty, has failed to promote principles of fairness in discharge of his duties; has failed to maintain accountability and transparency: has failed to maintain courtesy and good behavior with the public; has not taken decisions solely in public interest, has misused his position as a civil servant and took decision in order to derive material benefits for himself, his family, his friends; has acted in a manner that is contrary to law, rules, regulations and established practices and has failed to perform & discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism & dedication to the best of his abilities.
The above facts, clearly indicates that there are multiple counts of serious violations of the standard code of conduct warranting imposition of penalty of the highest order namely dismissal from service.
Therefore, the First Test laid in the Ved Mitter Gill's case stands satisfied in the case of Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini,
2. Second Test & Third Test: Under the second test, the competent authority is required to satisfy himself that it is not reasonably practicable to conduct an enquiry. Under the third test. The competent authority must record the reasons for such satisfaction in writing. Since both the tests are interconnected, answering the satisfaction of the said two tests is taken up together in the following paragraphs:
In the Judgment of Ved Mitter Gill, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, it is permissible to dispense with the conduct of an enquiry and to proceed with the imposition of penalty without ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 51 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE conducting an enquiry without laying down any exhaustive circumstances under which the enquiry can be dispensed with The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to a couple of instances in which the inquiry can be dispensed with. Among the instances denoted, the Hon'ble Court has held that where the government servant, particularly through or together with his associates, so terrorises, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are going to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so it may not be possible to hold an enquiry. The third instance referred to in the said judgment states that it would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails, and it is immaterial whether the government servant concerned is or is not a party to bringing about such an atmosphere.
WHEREAS a detailed review of the material available including the FIR, the report of the investigation officer, the remand application, the proceedings of the Hon'ble Magistrate's Court etc, clearly indicate that Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini along with other officers subjected the employees of M/s Mexo Solutions to terror, threat and intimidation. Having undergone such a traumatic experience, the employees of M/s Mexo Solutions would not be in a position to depose and give evidence against Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini without fear. A terrorized, threatened and intimidated witness will always fear for his life and would not be in a position depose truthfully in the event a departmental enquiry is conducted the said employees would be key witnesses. When the key witnesses have been terrorized & consequently would not be in a position to depose truthfully without fear, the enquiry would be an empty formality.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 52 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE WHEREAS the undersigned keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, is of the considered opinion that conducting an enquiry with the terrorized, threatened and intimidated witnesses, who would not be in a position to depose without fear would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, it is concluded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry as envisaged under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and it is a fit case for invoking clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19(ii) of CCCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
NOW, THEREFORE, in view of availability of prima facie evidence of serious breach of standard code of conduct under rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in view of the aforesaid reasons for dispensing with conduct of enquiry and in the exercise of power conferred by Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification. Control. Appeal) Rules. 1965 read with sub-clause (b) of the second proviso to the clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the undersigned hereby finds it just and essential to dispense with the conduct of enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19(ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and proceeds to dismiss Sri. Manoj Kumar Saini. Superintendent, Bengaluru South Commissionerate, Bengaluru from service with immediate effect."
39. It is also pertinent to mention over here that the learned counsel for the respondents has also very emphatically proved the point that the applicant had not exhausted the remedies available to him and stated that accordingly, the O.A maybe dismissed, solely on the grounds of violation of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as follows:
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 53 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 'Section 20, Applicantions not to be admitted unless other remedies are exhausted.' (1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an applicantion unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
In this regard, he has cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumanthappa Krishnappa Mikali v. State of Karnataka, 2006 SCC OnLine Kar 999, and in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ((1989) 4 SCC 582): (AIR 1990 SC 10), cited supra.
40. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts of India and the relevant portions of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, it is clearly established that:
a. The applicant, along with his three accomplices, had visited the house of the complainant on 30-08-2024 and committed series of offences which are subject matter of Crime No. 231/2024 dated 09.09.2024 under sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 198, 204, 308(2) and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 54 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE b. The applicant had not taken any permission nor informed any office superiors for carrying out the above operation, which was totally illegal and uncalled for.
c. A Charge Sheet has been filed against the applicant, on the basis of seizure of huge amount of incriminating material including cash, gold, mobile phones etc,. d. The conduct of the applicant, and his accomplices which include criminal intimidation, confinement, causing injuries, extortion etc. is extremely abominable & heinous. e. The very fact that the complainant and his partners/friends agreed to and actually parted with money over Rs. 1 Crore, clearly indicate that they were very badly intimidated and threatened. Hence, the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that there is very little likelihood of this complainant/witnesses giving evidence, against the applicant during the course of a disciplinary enquiry is well founded.
f. The applicant, for reasons best known to him, has not complied with the requirements of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and has directly approached this Tribunal without exhausting all the remedies of the Appellant and Revisional Authorities.
g. The Order of Dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 08-11-2024, clearly passes the Triple Test as prescribed ajay ajay mudgal CAT Bangalore mudgal2025.07.18 15:58:55+05'30' 55 O.A.No.170/00682/2024/CAT/BANGALORE in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved MITTAR Gill Vs. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 86.
h. The Order of Dismissal is also strictly in conformity under Rule 19 (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
41. In view of the above conclusions, we find no grounds or reasons for interfering with the Order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
42. Hence, the OA is dismissed. All MAs, if any, also stand dismissed.
43. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/am/
ajay ajay mudgal
CAT Bangalore
mudgal2025.07.18
15:58:55+05'30'