MAHENDRA JAYANTILAL DOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these petitions, the respective petitioners have prayed for following reliefs in the respective petitions:

(2.) It is pertinent to note that petition being Special Civil Application No. 9493 of 2010 has been preferred by the employee - Mahendra Jayantilal Doshi whereas, petition being Special Civil Application No. 13819 of 2010 has been preferred by the department - employer. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status i.e. employee and the employer, respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the cases on hand are that the petitioner - employee was serving as an Assistant Commissioner of Customs Appraising, Group IV and Docks, Customs House at Kandla from January 1993 onwards. While working as such, he was involved in processing certain consignments, out of which, in one consignment, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence found that Ball Bearing of foreign origin had been illegally imported for which, the petitioner employee was detained under COFEPOSA Act, however, pursuant to order of this Court, said detention order was quashed and set aside. With regard to the said case of smuggling, the petitioner - employee came to be suspended w.e.f. 02/06/1994, wherein, he preferred Original Application No. 1753 of 1996 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at New Delhi in which, it was directed to complete the investigation expeditiously. With regard to suspension, he preferred Original Application No. 594 of 1998, in which, by judgment and order dated 01/02/1999 it was directed to the respondent - employer to complete the proceedings within six months. With regard to proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act, Showcause Notice was issued to the petitioner - employee on 13/04/1994 in which, vide judgment and order dated 29/10/1999, the petitioner was exonerated from the case of smuggling for which he was suspended. The said decision was confirmed by the appellate authority, New Delhi camp at Mumbai vide its judgment and order dated 25/06/2013 qua the petitioner - employee. It is the case of the petitioner - employee that prior to conclusion of proceedings under the Showcause Notice, the petitioner - employee was issued chargesheet on 12/06/1998 and some other officials, who were serving with the petitioner - employees were also made parties. It is further the case of the petitioner - employee that all those officers were exonerated and were taken back into service and they have retired gracefully. By Inquiry Report dated 28/12/1999, it was held that no charges levelled against the petitioner - employee were proved. Same Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry for other officers also. However, it is the case of the petitioner - employee that the disciplinary authority did not accept the Inquiry Report qua the petitioner - employee whereas, the report qua other officers, came to be accepted and Showcause Notice was issued to the petitioner - employee on 22/06/2000, which was challenged vide Original Application No. 49 of 2002 before the CAT, Mumbai, in which, by judgment and order dated 17/01/2003, it was directed to consider the Inquiry Report in accordance with law against which, the respondent - employer filed writ petition No. 2478 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court, which came to be dismissed on 11/08/2009. As other officers were exonerated and notice of disagreement was issued, the said proceedings were subject matter of Original Application No. 875 of 2001 before the CAT, Mumbai, which appears to be considered in aforesaid Original Application No. 49 of 2002, which came to be decided on 17/01/2003 against which the aforesaid writ petition No. 2478 of 2003 was filed. It is the case of the petitioner - employee that other codelinquents were exonerated whereas, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner - employee, wherein, the petitioner - employee preferred the Original Application No. 219 of 2001 wherein, the respondent - employer was directed to issue speaking Showcause Notice of disagreement containing decision of the disciplinary authority. The respondent - employer accepted the said decision dated 23/04/2004 in Original Application No. 219 of 2001 and as such, it became final. Thereafter, the respondent - employer issued Showcause Notice dated 09/09/2004 and eventually, the order of dismissal of the petitioner - employee dated 20/02/2007 came to be passed against which, Original Application No. 170 of 2007 before the CAT, Ahmedabad, was filed, wherein, by order dated 30/09/2008, the order of the disciplinary authority was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back and it was left to the respondent - employer to take action making certain observations and leaving no scope of consideration by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the employee being aggrieved to the said decision, has filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 9493 of 2010 assailing the order dated 20/02/2007 imposing punishment and alternatively, to quash and set aside the order dated 30/09/2008 passed by the employer, whereas, the employer, vide second petition being Special Civil Application No. 13819 of 2010, has assailed the aforesaid order dated 30/09/2008 passed in Original Application No. 170 of 2007. Thus, these petitions before this Court.