CHANDRA PRAKASH SHARMA SON OF MURARI LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition assails order dated 30/03/2016 in O.A. No.363/2013 as modified on 24/05/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench to the extent that the Tribunal declined to quash the memo of charges.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not challenge the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the departmental proceedings have been directed to remain stayed only till conclusion of the cross-examination in the criminal case. That part of the order therefore has attained finality and need not be considered by us.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner next submits that while holding the post of Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Group-B Service, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 30/03/2012 for a departmental proceeding. His disciplinary authority was the Commissioner. The charge memo was issued under the signature of one Shri O.P. Dadich, who substantively held the post of Deputy Commissioner but was promoted ad-hoc as a Commissioner on 14/05/2009. The order of promotion itself stated that it was for a period of one year or till appointment of a regular incumbent whichever was earlier. The Office memorandum No.28036/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 03.04.2013 reiterated that adhoc promotions would automatically cease on expiry of one year term unless there was express approval. In absence of any further approval, the ad-hoc promotion automatically came to an end on 14/05/2010. The fact that extension may have been subsequently granted on 08/07/2013 will not detract from the position that on 30/03/2012 he was de-facto not the disciplinary authority or can be deemed to be so under Schedule to Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"). Shri Dadich was ultimately promoted as a Joint Commissioner on 19/11/2014 and not as Commissioner. The issuance of the charge-sheet was itself therefore without authority and contrary to Rule 14.