UOI & ANR. Vs. PS PURKAYASTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is probably the 30th case we have come across in which the source of the problem is an ex -parte order disposing of the main matter passed by the Tribunal on the very first date when the Original Application was listed before the Tribunal. We have repeatedly cautioned the Central Administrative Tribunal that howsoever water tight and irrefutable a case may appear at first blush, but under no circumstances can a judicial Fora decide a matter without putting the other side to notice. Such a procedure violates the principle of natural justice; the greatest gift of God to the law. Notwithstanding God having witnessed Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, he give them a hearing before punishing them for the wrong. How well this has translated in the realm of law needs no exposition by us since decisions relating to principles of natural justice are legion. It all began when OA No. 3290/2010 filed by the respondent was disposed of by the Tribunal without notice to the respondents thereof, when it was listed for the first time before the Tribunal on October 05, 2010. The Tribunal noted that on October 06, 2005 a charge sheet was issued to the applicant before it; the respondent in the writ petition, and on May 16, 2008 the inquiry report was submitted. The Tribunal noted that the second stage advice from CVC had been obtained and along with the report of the Inquiry Officer had been submitted to the respondent who had furnished his response. Thinking that it was an open and shut case, warranting immediate disposal, without even putting respondents to notice, the Tribunal directed that the disciplinary proceedings would terminate in a decision within two months.

(2.) IF only the Tribunal had put to notice the respondents before it, it would have been informed to the Tribunal that due to a fire incident engulfing the building of the Central Board of Customs and Excise at HUDCO Complex in the intervening night of 26th and 27th May 2010, the record pertaining to the inquiry had got burnt. The record had thus to be reconstructed. The further problem was that the relevant record from which the record of inquiry had to be reconstructed had got either partially burnt or required to be salvaged from the new office building to where the salvaged record was shifted.

(3.) GOD knows wherefrom the Tribunal recorded in its order dated July 15, 2011 that the report of the Inquiry Officer was in favour of the respondent and that the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed to the findings pertaining to charge No. 1 and 4 (a fact which is wrong because the Disciplinary Authority has not penned a note of disagreement because the report of the Inquiry Officer does not exonerate the respondent); but after so recording and after noting the version of the petitioner of the record being destroyed, the Tribunal opined as per the order dated July 15, 2001 that there was no justification to extend the time, but did so by granting 4 weeks time to pass the final order; simultaneously peremptorily directing that on failure to do so the inquiry proceedings shall be deemed to be dropped. We find that the Tribunal adversely commented on the conduct of the petitioner in seeking advice from UPSC without Disciplinary Authority penning a note of disagreement.