The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise vs. Binod Kumar Sinha

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, along with other revenue authorities, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 20, 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench. This order allowed Original Application (O.A.) No. 050/00235 of 2020, filed by Binod Kumar Sinha. Mr. Sinha was subjected to disciplinary proceedings initiated by a charge-sheet dated October 18, 1996. He had previously filed O.A. No. 170 of 2012, which was allowed on September 24, 2014, with specific directions for appointing a common inquiry authority and completing the disciplinary proceedings within stipulated timelines. The subsequent O.A. was filed due to the alleged non-compliance with the 2014 CAT order.

Held

The Court held that the alleged charge related to a period prior to 1996, as evidenced by the charge-sheet dated October 18, 1996. This matter was previously litigated in O.A. No. 170 of 2012, decided on September 24, 2014, with specific directions. The Court found that if the petitioner-department faced administrative difficulties in complying with the 2014 order, they had remedies available, such as filing a review petition to seek further time or filing a writ petition. Instead, the petitioner-department "slept over" the order. The Court concluded that departmental lapses in complying with the order dated September 24, 2014, could not be ignored, and therefore, there was no error in the CAT's order dated January 20, 2021, passed in O.A. No. 050/00235 of 2020. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CAT erred in allowing O.A. No. 050/00235 of 2020 by quashing the orders appointing a common disciplinary and inquiry authority, despite the grave nature of the charges against the respondent and administrative difficulties faced by the department in complying with the previous CAT order dated September 24, 2014? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the charges were grave, and the delay in appointing a common inquiry authority and concluding the inquiry was due to administrative difficulties, such as co-employees being posted in different departments with varying administrative controls. They argued that these difficulties prevented compliance with the September 24, 2014 order, and therefore, the CAT erred in allowing the subsequent O.A. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (Binod Kumar Sinha) argued that the departmental proceedings related to the charge-sheet dated October 18, 1996, should be deemed quashed in view of the CAT's order dated September 24, 2014, which had set strict timelines for appointing an inquiry authority and completing the proceedings. The CAT's subsequent order in O.A. No. 050/00235 of 2020 was based on this premise.