Karnataka High Court
Deepak M Ganeyan vs Union Of India on 26 March, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
WP No.54194/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.54194/2017 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
DEEPAK M.GANEYAN
S/O.N.N.GANEYAN
AGED 51 YEARS, WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
NORTH DIVISION 2, BENGALURU
BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONERATE
NO.29/2, BASAVESHWARA BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001, RESIDING AT
NO.476, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
PENNFIELD GARDEN, SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE
JAKKUR POST, BENGALURU-560 064 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.R.HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
BY SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
BENGALURU ZONE, P.B.NO.5400
C.R.BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
WP No.54194/2017
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
BANGALORE V COMMISSIONERATE
PRESENTLY BENGALURU NORTH
COMMISSIONERATE, HEAD QUARTERS
(STAT), 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING
BMTC BUILDING, SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 015 ...RESPONDENTS
(ASG SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 9.11.2017 IN OA/170/01030/2016 AND THE
ORDER DATED 16.11.2017 IN R.A.170/00051/2017 PASSED BY
THE CAT AT ANNEX-A AND ANNEX-E RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.01.2018, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 9.11.2017 in OA/170/01030/2016 and order dated 16.11.2017 in RA/170/00051/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('CAT' for short).
2. Heard Shri A.R.Holla, learned Counsel for petitioner.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the petitioner was working as a Superintendent of Central Excise in Bengaluru-III Commissionerate. Some contraband was -3- WP No.54194/2017 seized in the Bengaluru International Airport by the Customs Department. On 16.6.2003, petitioner was suspended on the premise that he was involved in the smuggling of the said goods. A departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the said finding and ordered petitioner's dismissal from service vide order dated 23.3.2011. An appeal filed against the said order of dismissal was rejected. Petitioner challenged the penalty order before the CAT in O.A.No.455/2013. CAT, vide order dated 25.7.2014 set aside the dismissal order and directed respondents to reinstate petitioner and to take a decision to regulate the period between the date of dismissal and reinstatement.
4. Respondents filed a Misc. Application in M.A.No.182/2016 before the CAT seeking clarification as to whether the Disciplinary Authority was permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry. CAT, vide order dated 22.4.2016 held that the application for clarification would not lie as final orders were -4- WP No.54194/2017 passed in the original application. However, CAT reserved liberty to the respondents to file a review application.
5. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 initiated fresh proceedings against the petitioner on 2.11.2016 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner submitted his reply contending that the proceedings initiated were without authority of law. However, Enquiry Officer commenced the proceedings and called upon the petitioner to remain present for enquiry on 16.12.2016.
6. Petitioner challenged the legality and correctness of further enquiry before the CAT. The said application was dismissed by impugned order dated 09.11.2017 and respondents were permitted to re-examine two witnesses namely, Shri Abdul Khader and Y.Raju.
7. Petitioner filed a review application before the CAT with a prayer to review order dated 9.11.2017. The review application was also dismissed by impugned order dated 16.11.2017 holding that the Disciplinary Authority may give a finding on the charge based on the statements of -5- WP No.54194/2017 witnesses given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, even though they were not subjected to cross- examination.
8. Petitioner has challenged both the orders passed on Original Application and Review Application in this writ petition.
9. Shri A.R.Holla, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner having been set aside by the CAT in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents could not have initiated the proceedings on the same charge afresh.
10. Significantly, the CAT in its order on Review Application has recorded as follows:
"................The Tribunal had said that the earlier order will not be sustained only for the reason that these two witnesses were not cross-examined but it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal at that point of time. Therefore there has to be a denovo enquiry in which all opportunities will be granted to the applicant to prove his case. At this point of time Shri A.R.Holla, learned counsel for the review applicant, raises an objection that it may not be a denovo enquiry but further enquiry."
(Emphasis Supplied) -6- WP No.54194/2017
11. Thus, it is clear that the learned Advocate for the petitioner who was also the advocate before the CAT in the review application has conceded that there could be a 'further enquiry' but not a 'denovo enquiry'. Therefore, the order passed in the review application is clearly based on the concession made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A litigant cannot be permitted to challenge an order based on his own concession.
12. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.