The Chief Commissioner Of Central Excise vs. C K Sudheendra

Held

The High Court held that the CAT had passed the orders under challenge by relying upon its previous order in OA No. 170/00109/2017, which had admittedly been set aside by this Court. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CAT dated 16.04.2019 and 28.06.2019 were set aside. The Court directed the employer not to recover any excess amount paid to the employees that might be recoverable due to a change in the date of promotion resulting from Review DPCs. The reasoning was that the employees were not at fault in the matter of promotion. In view of the Apex Court's judgment in State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., the question of recovery does not arise. The writ petitions were allowed with these directions.

Facts

The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Zone, filed these writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. In WP No. 3511/2021, the challenge is to an order dated 16.04.2019 in OA No. 170/00532-533/2017. In WP No. 7933/2021, the challenge is to an order dated 28.06.2019 in OA No. 170/00748/2018. The petitioners argued that the CAT's orders were based on a memo filed by the applicants and that a similar order in OA No. 170/00109/2017 had been set aside by this Court. The respondents (employees) contended that there were other grounds for consideration. The CAT had passed the impugned orders relying on its previous order in OA No. 170/00109/2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 170/00532-533/2017 and OA No. 170/00748/2018 are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group C Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979, as contended by the petitioners? Petitioner's Contention: The CAT erred in passing the impugned orders based on a memo filed by the applicants. The petitioners highlighted that a similar order in OA No. 170/00109/2017 was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 2752/2021 c/w. WP No. 2046/2021 decided on 01.04.2021, implying the current orders suffer from the same flaw. Respondent's Contention: The respondents (employees) argued that there are other contentions for consideration in these writ petitions, suggesting the CAT's decision might be supported by grounds beyond the one relied upon by the petitioners.