RAKESH KUMAR GAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is presently working as Superintendent of Customs under respondent No. 2 in Mumbai. He joined the Customs Department as Preventive Officer in July 1992 and was subsequently promoted as Superintendent in May 2005. In September 2011, applicant was served with Annexure A.I. Memorandum of charge alleging that he had knowingly availed of the benefit reserved for Ex -servicemen for the second time and got employment in the Customs Department in an unfair manner and suppressing the fact that he had initially got the employment in Canara Bank as an Ex -serviceman. The said charge -sheet is under challenge in this Original Application. It is not in dispute that the applicant had joined the Indian Army as Havildar in the Army Educational Corps in 1977. He joined Army Cadet College in the year 1981. However, in March 1983 he was ordered to be invalided out of Military Service on medical grounds. In November 1983 applicant joined Canara Bank as a Clerk under the Ex -servicemen quota. While so in 1990 the applicant had appeared for the examination held by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to the post of Inspectors of Central Excise and Income Tax etc. It is beyond controversy that the applicant joined the Customs Department as Preventive Officer in Mumbai on April 20, 1992 after resigning his job in Canara Bank. As has been mentioned earlier, the applicant was thereafter promoted as Superintendent in 2005. But in September 2011, he was served with Annexure A.I. Memorandum of Chargesheet containing the following Articles of Charge.

(2.) IT is contended by the applicant that it is extremely unfair and unjust to proceed against him departmentally at the fag end of his career and that too after he had put in blemish -less service in the department for more than 20 years. Even assuming without admitting that the job in Canara Bank is a "Government job in Civil side" it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that he was guilty of any misrepresentation or suppression. He had participated in the selection process held by the Staff Selection Commission after disclosing the fact that he was an ex -serviceman and that he had been working as a Clerk in Canara Bank at the relevant point of time. He had also produced the letter of acceptance of his resignation issued by the Canara Bank before joining the Department. Therefore, the charge that he had deliberately suppressed the factum of his first employment against Ex -servicemen quota is totally baseless and incorrect.

(3.) MR . R.R. Shetty who appears for the respondents has vehemently contended before us that this Original Application is liable to be dismissed in limine since the applicant has approached this Tribunal without facing the Disciplinary Enquiry. He submits that this Tribunal will not be justified in interfering with the Departmental Proceeding at this stage by examining the question whether the charges levelled against the applicant are sustainable or not. The applicant has to necessarily face the enquiry and exhaust the statutory remedies available to him before approaching this Tribunal. Learned Counsel has invited our attention to a catena of decisions in support of the above contentions.