Union Of INDIA vs. A. Chandra Sekhara Reddy

Held

The High Court held that the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable and tenable. The Court noted the prolonged delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, with the matter pertaining to the year 2011 and still not having attained finality. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had considered the factual issues and the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, directing the authorities to consider the respondent's case for promotion and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that more time was needed for inquiry completion but, considering the extensive delay, was not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order. However, to accommodate the petitioner's submission, the Court granted an additional one month's time from the date of receipt of its order for the authorities to take action as per the Tribunal's directions. The ratio decidendi is that inordinate delays in disciplinary proceedings, especially when they impede an employee's career progression, can warrant directions for consideration of promotion, even with pending inquiries, provided the delay is not attributable to the employee.

Facts

The petitioner, the revenue, challenges an order dated 22.04.2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal directed the petitioner to consider the respondent's promotion to Joint Commissioner, Central Tax & Customs, despite a pending Charge Memorandum No.21/2017 dated 12.06.2017. The petitioner argues the Tribunal's order is erroneous and contrary to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The respondent contends the Tribunal's order is not amenable to judicial review and that their promotion has been overlooked twice despite juniors being promoted. The respondent is currently a Deputy Commissioner of GST. Previous proceedings before the Tribunal concerning a minor penalty and a censure order have been set aside or directed for conclusion within stipulated times, which have expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal, directing the consideration of the respondent's promotion notwithstanding the pendency of a charge memorandum, is sustainable and tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, argued that the Tribunal's order is erroneous, contrary to law, and opposed to the spirit and object of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. They also submitted that the inquiry pursuant to the charge memo is nearing completion, with orders expected soon. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, through their counsel, argued that the Tribunal's order suffers from no error or infirmity and is therefore not subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. They further contended that despite prior Tribunal orders, their promotion has not been considered, and their juniors have been promoted twice.