Janardan Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
These three review petitions were filed by former Inspectors of Central Excise, Patna, challenging a previous High Court order that had allowed writ petitions filed by the Union of India and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The original writ petitions had challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had set aside a disciplinary action against the petitioners. The disciplinary action, taken by the Disciplinary Authority, imposed a 50% cut in pension for five years on each petitioner. This penalty was imposed after the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with a "clean-chit" report from a domestic inquiry, finding anomalies and suspicious endorsements related to the transport of goods to Nepal, which allegedly enabled exporters to garner inadmissible benefits.
Held
The Court held that the review petitioners' assertion that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply its own independent mind was factually incorrect. The judgment stated that the petitioners were indeed noticed with respect to the note of difference by the Disciplinary Authority, and the order was passed only after analyzing their response. Furthermore, the Court found no indication that the Disciplinary Authority blindly followed departmental advice, concluding that its order was based on "a fortiori reasons." Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the procedural requirement of calling upon the petitioners to respond was fulfilled. Consequently, the Court found no good grounds to re-examine the previous judgment and dismissed all the review petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority applied its own independent mind in differing with the Inquiry Officer's report and imposing a penalty, or if it blindly followed departmental advice? (Question of law and fact). 2. Whether the review petitioners ought to have been called upon to respond to the Disciplinary Authority's note of difference with the Inquiry Officer's report, and if this procedural requirement was met? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply independent thought and relied on advice from the Department. They also contended that they were not adequately given an opportunity to respond to the Disciplinary Authority's differing opinion from the Inquiry Officer's report, a procedural lapse. Revenue's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the opposite parties (Revenue/State) as no one appeared on their behalf.
Sections Cited
Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Date : 30-08-2024 All the three review petitions have been taken up together for convenience. However, the facts of Civil Review No. 376 of 2019 has been taken as the reference point.
We have heard Mr. M.P. Dixit, the learned Advocate for all the review petitioners.
No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.
In Civil Review No. 376 of 2019, the wife of the employee was substituted on his death during the pendency of C.W.J.C. No. 1957 of 2019. Her husband was posted as an Inspector, Customs, Central Excise, Land Custom Station, Jogbani.
The other two review petitioners were also posted as Inspectors at Jogbani only.
5/9
All the three employees were proceeded against in the domestic inquiry where they were given a clean-chit. However, the report of the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who, on perusal of the entire records, found and opined that employees be subjected to a punishment of reduction of 50% cut in their pensionable amount for five years by separate orders dated 08.07.2013. 7. All the review petitioners had challenged the afore-noted order in the departmental proceeding before the CAT, where the punishment imposed upon them was set aside.
That judgment of CAT was put to challenge by Union of India and CBDT in three writ petitions before this Court, viz., CWJC Nos. 1957, 2007 and 2242 of 2019. 9. The writ petitions were allowed and after setting aside the order passed by CAT, the order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld.
6/9
While passing such composite order in all the three writ petitions referred to above, this Court had come to a finding that the review petitioners/employees were responsible, to a large extent, for the Surat based exporters to garner inadmissible export benefits. Many anomalies were found in the functioning of the review petitioners and in fact, the certificates/endorsements confirming the transport of goods to Nepal was found to be suspicious. The records revealed that the Disciplinary Authority, differing with the favourable inquiry report, called upon the review petitioners to respond to the issues on which the Disciplinary Authority chose to differ with the report of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, on perusal of the entire records and the explanation of the review petitioners, found that the report of the Inquiry Officer was lop-sided and could not have been sustained.
The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, imposed a penalty of 50% cut in their pensions for the 7/9 next five years. This was under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The matter was forwarded to the Government for decision by the Ministry on behalf of the President under Rule 9. Thereafter, the records were referred to UPSC for its advice, which also opined that in view of grave misconduct committed by the review petitioners, 50% pension be deducted for five years.
It was argued before this Court by the review petitioners that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer and that different standards were employed in dealing with the cases of other employees with similar charges.
The afore-noted contention on behalf of the review petitioners was not accepted and it was found that there was nothing amiss in the order of the Disciplinary Authority requiring any interference at that stage.
The order of the Tribunal, therefore, was set aside and the order of the Disciplinary Authority was 8/9 restored.
The main reasons for the petitioners to seek review are that: (i) the Disciplinary Authority did not apply its own independent mind but based its opinion on the advice at two stages by the Department and; (ii) that once the Disciplinary Authority had sounded difference of opinion with the report of the Inquiry Officer, the review petitioners ought to have been called upon to respond to the same. This requirement, according to the review petitioners, was not fulfilled.
This appears to be an incorrect statement factually. In fact, the review petitioners were noticed with respect to the note of difference by the Disciplinary Authority and only after analyzing their response, the order was passed.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the Disciplinary Authority blindly followed the advice 9/9 of the Department. The order of the Disciplinary authority is based on a fortiori reasons.
No good ground has been made out by all the three petitioners for any re-look at the judgment.
All the petitions are dismissed.
Sauravkrsinha/ Krishna- (Ashutosh Kumar, J) (Jitendra Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.09.2024 Transmission Date NA
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.