Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs And Ors vs. Egidio M E Dsilva

Held

The High Court held that the Petitioners failed to cite any statutory provision that permitted them to discard a concluded inquiry and initiate a fresh inquiry by appointing a new Inquiry Officer. The Court noted that the Employee had retired and was receiving pension and gratuity, and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after a significant delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal's finding that there was no documentary evidence produced or proved during the inquiry to establish the Employee's guilt was considered a finding of fact. The Tribunal's reliance on judgments like Delhi High Court's in Priyadarshani v/s. Punjab National Bank and Supreme Court's in State of Haryana & Anr. V/s. Rattan Singh, which held that findings of an Inquiry Officer are perverse without evidence, was upheld. The Court found no perversity or error in the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the petition.

Facts

The Union of India and the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Petitioners) are challenging a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that quashed an order withholding the pensionary benefits and gratuity of Mr. Egidio M.E. D’Silva (Respondent/Employee). The dispute arose from alleged fraudulent rebates of Rs. 8.32 Crores detected between May 2005 and March 2006, where the Employee, an Assistant Commissioner, was accused of facilitating fraudulent shipping bills through his EDI Login ID. The Employee retired on August 31, 2006, receiving his gratuity and pension. A charge memorandum was issued on July 22, 2009, for only 9 out of 51 shipping bills due to time bar. An inquiry officer initially found charges proved, but the UPSC pointed out procedural lapses. A fresh inquiry was initiated, and after 11 years of retirement, a new inquiry officer again found the charges proved. The UPSC advised withholding pension and gratuity, leading to the impugned order of November 24, 2020, which was later set aside by the CAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners were legally entitled to discard a concluded inquiry and initiate a fresh inquiry by appointing a new Inquiry Officer, particularly when no specific rule permitted such an action? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Union of India): Argued that a fresh inquiry could be conducted by the employer and there was no bar to doing so. They relied on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding discarding inquiries and initiating fresh ones. Respondent (Employee): The CAT, in its judgment, noted that the learned advocate for the Petitioners could not find any provision in the applicable rules that permitted dropping a concluded inquiry or starting a new one on a clean slate. No such enabling provision was cited before the CAT or the High Court.