UNION OF INDIA Vs. A KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein was working as Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Hosur-I and he was due to retire from service on 31.10.2001. However, a week prior to his superannuation, by an order dated 25.10.2001, he was placed under suspension and subsequently, he was allowed to retire w.e.f. 31.10.2001, subject to the disciplinary proceedings. THEreupon, a charge memo. with five articles of charges was issued to him under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by the proceedings dated 23.7.2003. All the five charges are inter-linked and the sum and substance of the same is that the first respondent, while functioning as Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Hosur-I during 2000-2001, referred seven claims for rebate filed by M/s. Premier Mills Ltd., Hosur, for pre-audit as the rebate claims were over Rs.5 lakhs value. On being objected to and intimated by the Audit that the claims are not eligible for sanction of rebate due to certain deficiencies, he had issued a show-cause notice to the party and adjudicated the show-cause notice and passed a final order Nos.4/2001 on 3.5.2001, sanctioning a total rebate amounting to Rs.77,40,997/= in nine claims, including two other similar claims of the same party and also issued the cheque for the said amount in undue haste on the very next day i.e. on 4.5.2001 without referring the matter back to the audit for concurrence or recording their contrary views in the matter, as required by the Board's instructions No.33/90, dated 31.5.1990, which contemplates that in case of difference of opinion between the Divisional Officer and Audit, the Commissioner's orders should be obtained before passing a final order and issuing the cheque. THE first respondent had submitted his reply on 30.9.2003. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 9.12.2003 and on enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 15.2.2005, has found all the Articles of charges, except the Charge No.1, as not proved.

(2.) SINCE the terminal benefits were not paid to him because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent filed O.A.No.678 of 2005 before the Tribunal praying to direct the respondents therein, to complete the disciplinary proceedings forthwith, wherein the Tribunal, by the order dated 31.8.2005, has directed the Department to complete and pass orders in the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of six weeks, which came to an end in October 2005. Thereupon, the Department has approached the Tribunal, by way of M.A.No.479 of 2005, praying for extension of at least six months time to conclude the proceedings and the Tribunal, by the order dated 2.12.2005, has extended the time by three months and directed the Department to pass final orders before 1.3.2006. Thereupon, the Department has issued the impugned show-cause notice to the first respondent on 22.3.2006, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and called upon the first respondent to submit as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of articles of charges II to IV should not be disagreed with and a major penalty i.e. suitable cut in his pension should not be imposed on him. Aggrieved, the first respondent herein filed O.A.No.284 of 2006, praying to quash the charge memo. dated 23.7.2003 and the consequential show-cause notice dated 22.3.2006 and to direct the respondent therein i.e. the petitioner herein to release the terminal benefits due to him.

(3.) IN view of the above time-schedule fixed by the authority on the subject, namely the Central Vigilance Commission, the reasons offered by the petitioner Department for not finalising the Departmental proceedings against the first respondent cannot be appreciated. IN the case on hand, as has already been adverted to supra, the charge memo. was issued on 23.7.2003 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 9.12.2003 and on enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, has submitted his report on 15.2.2005 wherein he has found all the Articles of charges, except the Charge No.1, as not proved. Therefore, as per Sl.No.13 of the time-schedule of the CVC, as has been discussed supra, the Department ought to have sent the copy of the Enquiry Officer to the charged officer for his representation within fifteen days with reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings.