Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Siraj Khan vs M/O Commerce on 10 March, 2023
a fe. 1 OA 443/2020 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA NO.443/2020 . th Dated friday, the/o day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR, T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HON'BLE MS, LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.Siraj Khan, S/o Sardar Khan, ; No.297, MKN Road, Alandut, Chennai 16 By Advocate M/s S.Harinyi Vs. 1. The Development Commissioner, Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045, 2. the Joint Development Commissioner, Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045. 3.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Office of the Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045, 4,The Executive Assistant, Officer of the Development.Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Department of Commerce, National Highways-45, Tambaram Chennai 600 045. By Advocate Mr.K.Rajendran . Applicant . Respondents 2 OA 443/2020 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"(i)Te call for records relating to order vide No.1/25/2020-Admn.l/l dated 08.09.2020. issued by the 1* respondent appointing inquiry authority and set aside the same, {ii} To call for records relating to. order vide No.1/25/2020-Admn.|/2 dated 08.09.2020 issued by the 2* respondent appointing presenting officer and set aside the same. ;
(iii) To call for records relating to order vide No.1/25/2020-Admn.| dated 08.09.2020 issued bythe 1" respondant and.set aside the same"
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant is as follows:
The applicant who has joined as a LDC in the office of the -espondent on 24.02.1984 came to be transferred In the same capacity from New Delhi on 01.09.1987 and joined in the office of the Deputy Director, Save Grain Campaign office. By order dated 02.02.1998, the applicant came to be transferred to the office of the Development Commissioner, Madras, Export Processing Zone, on 06.05.2010, the applicant came to be promoted to the post of UDC. On 01.02.2019, the 4" respondent has issued a note and sought for explanation from the applicant regarding his absence at the time of Flag Hoisting in the 70" Republic Day. Applicant has submitted a suitable reply. Further on 06.12.2019, the 4" respondent has issued a memo seeking explanation from the applicant and his superior Assistant Development Commissioner questioning the delay in updation of SEZ online pertaining. to the renewal of letter of approval with respect of M/s. ATC 'Tyres Private Limited. On 11.12.2019 applicant has submitted his reply to the memo. On 12.02.2020 the 4 respondent issued a stern warning as to not to repeat 3 OA 443/2020 such mistake, Although no lapse was specifically proved. 2.1. On 11.11.2019, an office order was issued by the 2™ respondent that the verification and certificate of the SOFTEX form being done by the Assistant Development Commissioner shall henceforth be carried out by the authorized officer posted from the Customs side at SEZ in respect of units . under their jurisdiction. According to the applicant certain clarifications has been issued by the 2 respondent in respect of implementation of the said orders. Though the applicant was following with the said orders, however on 20.07.2020, an office memorandum is issued by the 3* respondent alleging that in spite of the office order dated 11.11.2019, same SOFTEX in SEZ online were verified in the name of applicant and call the explanation from the applicant to his position on 21.07.2020 at 13.05pm. Applicant has received the said memo on 21.07.2020 and preliminary enquiry was conducted and applicant was issued a suspension order on 08.09.2020 by i* respondent, 2.2 Subsequently applicant has also received order of appointment of inguiry officer as well as presenting officer in the disciplinary proceedings dated 08.09.2020. The applicant contended that the said order of suspension as weil as appointing the inguiry officer and presenting officer in the matter without following Rule 14(3) and Rule 14(4) of CCS CCA Rules 1965. The 3° respondent without having any authority to Initiate disciplinary proceedings and without any show cause conducted the said inquiry. The applicant contended that without providing the article of charge to the applicant the said appointment of the IO and PO has been done thereby violating the principles of natural justice and due process of law. Being aggrieved the applicant has challenged the suspension order as well as the appointment order of IO dated 08.09.2020 and appointment of the PO dated 4 - OA443/2020 08.09.2020 in the present OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their detailed reply and opposed the claim of the app'icant on the ground that the same is premature. The inquiry has been initiated after conduction of the preliminary investigation and the appointment of the 10 and PO it was done for more of an administrative convenience and hence prayed for dismissal of the OA.
3.1 The respondents have also filed MA 228/2021 for vacating 'the inzerim order granted by this Tribunal dated 29.01.2021 wherein this Tribunal has directed the respondents not to go ahead with any further departmental proceedings until the next date of hearing.
4, The applicant has also filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and also written submissions reiterating the averments made in the OA. In support of his contention he has also relied upon the following judaments:
(i) Union. of India & Ors Vs. B.V.Gopinath (Supreme court of India
-C.A.N0.7761/2013 dated 05.09.2013
(ii) Tea Board and Ors. Vs. Rasamoy Roy and Others (High court of Calcutta) MANU/WB/0379/2007
(iii) C. Vadakathian Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration and Ors. (High Court of Madurai Bench) MANU/TN/ 2687/2011
(iv) Chhedi Lal Vs. Union of India (CAT-Delhi OA No.1377/2008 dt, 26.02.2009)
(v) Dr.Hira Lal Vs. M/o Health & Family Welfare (CAT-Delhi OA No.1926/2015 dt. 01.08.2017)
5. Heard M/s.S.Harinyi for the applicant and MrK.Rajendran for the respondents and perused the OA along with relevant records.5 OA443/2020
6. It is to be noted that pending the said OA, the respondents authority have by their order dated 01.01.2021 revoked the suspension order and directed the applicant to join duty and accordingly the applicant had joined duty. It is also to be noted that subsequent to the fillng of the present OA, the respondents have issued a fresh charge memo dated 06.10.2020 and the applicant also submitted written statement on 27.10.2020 to the said charge memo, All these facts have been brought on record by way of additional affidavit by the applicant along with the memorandum of charge dated 06.10.2020. and revocation of suspension order dated 01.01.2021. The citations relied upon by the applicant are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances in our considered opinion, nothing survives in the said OA. OA thus rendered infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
ee nf es