Shishir Kumar Sinha vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that the Administrative Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not rendering findings on all the grounds presented by the petitioner for interim relief. The Court noted that the Tribunal had only considered the applicability of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and had omitted to address the grounds related to the eleven-year delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the precedent set in Shailendra Pasari vs. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors., and the principle of holding disciplinary proceedings in abeyance when criminal prosecution arises from the same incident. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must pass a speaking order on all these grounds. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the petitioner's application for interim relief, render findings on the aforementioned grounds, and pass a fresh speaking order within 30 days. The Court clarified that the Tribunal should not be prejudiced by its earlier impugned order dated 22.09.2023 while deciding the question of interim relief. The merits of the matter were not commented upon.

Facts

The petitioner, Shishir Kumar Sinha, an Inspector in the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax department, filed a writ petition challenging an interlocutory order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.720/2023. The Tribunal had rejected his prayer for interim relief, which sought a stay on disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner's grievance was that the Tribunal rendered a finding only on one ground (applicability of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985) and failed to consider other crucial grounds. These grounds included the inordinate delay of eleven years in initiating disciplinary proceedings, a relevant High Court decision (Shailendra Pasari vs. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.), and the principle that disciplinary proceedings should be held in abeyance when criminal prosecution arises from the same incident.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Administrative Tribunal erred in law by failing to render findings on all grounds raised by the petitioner for interim relief, specifically concerning the delay in disciplinary proceedings, the precedent set in Shailendra Pasari vs. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors., and the principle of holding disciplinary proceedings in abeyance during a related criminal prosecution, thereby failing to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering all the grounds on which interim relief was sought. These grounds were the eleven-year delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, a binding precedent from this Court in Shailendra Pasari vs. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors., and the established principle that disciplinary proceedings should be stayed when criminal prosecution arises from the same incident. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's order was deficient as it only addressed one of these grounds. Respondents' Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.