- (1.) INSTANT petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) dt. 17.12.2013 holding that the OA is pre mature as petitioner approached the Tribunal at the stage when show cause notice under R.19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Rules 1965) was served and opportunity to raise objection are available to him under the law. The facts relevant for appreciating the controversy raised in the instant petition are that while the petitioner was working as Inspector, Customs and Central Excise with the respondent department, a criminal prosecution was launched against him u/S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) in the year 2003 and after regular trial, he was convicted u/S. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act vide judgment dt. 28.7.2008 and on appeal being preferred, the Court of Appeal has suspended the sentence vide order dt. 19.8.2008 and indisputably he is facing conviction under the PC Act.
(2.) IT has come on record that apart from the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, a disciplinary enquiry was also initiated and memorandum along with statement of allegation was served upon the petitioner on 21.3.2005 under R. 14 of the Rules 1965 and after the evidence was led by the parties, the enquiry officer prepared its report, but no action was further taken on the enquiry officer's report by the disciplinary authority, however, on the basis of conviction by the competent court of jurisdiction under the PC Act, a show cause notice came to be served upon the petitioner under R. 19 of the Rules 1965 dt. 22.8.2013 and at this stage the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing original application (OA) which came to be dismissed vide order impugned. The main thrust of counsel for petitioner is that in the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, the enquiry officer has submitted its report and the charges were not found proved against him and in a case where departmental enquiry is initiated based on preponderance of probabilities the charge of similar nature has not been proved but to his dismay in a criminal case instituted against the petitioner, he has been convicted under the PC Act where charges have to prove beyond doubt but on appeal being preferred his sentence stands suspended and in these facts & circumstances, the respondent could not be held to be justified invoking R. 19 of the Rules 1965 more so when order of conviction was placed in July 2008 and show cause has been served upon the petitioner in August 2013 almost five years after conviction and it has come on record that his service remain unblemished and it was due to mala fide action of the department and it is very much reflected on screen can always be taken judicial notice by this Court, thus dismissal of his OA by the Tribunal on the ground that it was pre mature is not legally sustainable and further process remains an empty formality.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner and examined the material on record including order of the Tribunal.;