D.Tata Rao vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, an Inspector of Central Tax, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 707 of 2022. This order was in pursuance of a charge memorandum dated 02.02.2021. The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case (C.C. No. 7 of 2019) and departmental proceedings were initiated based on the same allegations. Previously, the CAT had stayed departmental proceedings for six months in O.A. No. 738 of 2021. After the expiry of this period, an inquiry notice was issued for 10.11.2022. The petitioner again approached the CAT, seeking a stay on departmental proceedings, citing a similar order granted to another employee (Accused No. 1) in O.A. No. 686 of 2022, where proceedings were stayed until further orders. However, the CAT denied interim relief to the petitioner, ordering only notice.

Held

The High Court held that the ends of justice would be met by remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the petitioner's case in light of its earlier order in O.A. No. 686 of 2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Furthermore, considering that O.A. No. 707 of 2022 was listed for 05.12.2022, while the inquiry notice was for 10.11.2022, the Court ordered that the proceedings dated 28.10.2022, requiring the petitioner to appear for the inquiry on 10.11.2022, shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal re-examines the petitioner's case and deals with it on par with the applicant in O.A. No. 686 of 2022. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in denying interim orders to the petitioner in O.A. No. 707 of 2022, while granting a stay on departmental proceedings to another employee (Accused No. 1) in O.A. No. 686 of 2022, based on identical allegations and circumstances? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Tribunal applied different yardsticks in granting a stay to one employee and denying it to the petitioner, despite both being accused in the same criminal case and facing similar departmental proceedings. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have granted similar relief as granted in O.A. No. 686 of 2022. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that each case must be examined independently. They contended that the charges against the petitioner were grave, and the Tribunal had merely ordered notice, intending to consider the petitioner's case after service of notice. Therefore, they argued, the writ petition lacked merit.