UNION OF INDIA Vs. A.R.ASOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This OP (CAT) has been filed challenging the order dated 14-09-2018 in OA No.841/2017. The petitioners are the respondents in that original application. The 1 st respondent herein filed that original application seeking to quash a memo of charges issued to him on 21-11-2016 while he was working as Assistant Commissioner, Air Customs, International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. For the sake of clarity, the parties are referred to, hereinafter, as they appear before the Tribunal and the documents referred to will be as they are marked before the Tribunal.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 25/26-03-2016 there was a surprise check conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation at Thiruvananthapuram Airport. The surprise inspection was on account of the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by one Sri. Vargheese who was then working as Superintendent of Air Customs at Thiruvananthapuram. Following the surprise check the CBI sent a report/ note dated 18-04-2016 to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes in which it was stated that the applicant who was the Supervising Officer at the Airport on 26-03-2016 was found in an inebriated state at the time of the surprise check. A memo of charges (Annexure-A3) was issued after necessary approvals/consents/reports etc, on 21-11-2016, 9 days before the applicant was to set to retire on 30-11-2016. After receiving the explanation of the applicant and finding the same to be unsatisfactory an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against the applicant. The charges framed against the applicant as is evident from Annexure-A3 were the following:-

(3.) Sri. T.V. Vinu, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and its officers would contend that the charges leveled against the applicant are serious in nature and therefore that the initiation and continuation of proceedings under the CCS (CC&A) Rules for imposition of a major penalty is in order. He would refer to the order of the Tribunal and contend that no legal infirmity or defect has been found by the Tribunal in order to declare that all further proceedings following Annexure-A3 memo of charges are to be treated as null and void. He would also point out that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring proceedings initiated on a memo of charges to be null and void. He would conclude by arguing that the Department must be permitted to complete the proceedings following the receipt of the second enquiry report (following the remit by the disciplinary authority) in a manner prescribed by the CCS (CC&A) Rules.