O. A. Nos. 665 and 681 of 2010. Case: 1. Jeboy Thomas S/o Late W. T. Thomas, Inspector of Central Excise, Internal Audit Section, Head Quarters Office, Cochin, 2. T. C. Rajakumar S/o M. Raman Nair, Inspector of Central Excise, Internal Audit Section, Headquarters Office, Kochi Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Customs and Excise, New Delhi, 2. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin Commissionerate, Cochin. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO. A. Nos. 665 and 681 of 2010
JudgesDr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member)
IssuePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(1)(c)
Judgement DateJuly 08, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member), (Ernakulam Bench)

  1. As the legal issue involved in these two cases is one and the same, a common order is passed.

  2. For the purpose of reference, however, O.A.681/2010 has been treated as pilot case.

  3. The applicants in the two OAs are Inspectors of Central Excise, initially joined as Upper Division Clerks/Inspectors as the case may be during 1980s. The next functional promotion of the two applicants is to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise. However, when the 1992/1993 batch of Inspectors was promoted to the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise as per order dated 30.6.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent, the applicants were excluded from the panel and their cases were kept in the sealed cover. The reason they could understand was that the proceedings before the CBI Court, Ernakulam against the 36 officers of the Central Excise & Customs were on and the names of the applicants have also been included as accused. Aggrieved by the supersession, the applicants submitted representations and the same stood rejected vide Annexure A-1 order dated 12.5.2010.

  4. The grievance of the applicants in fact is that no charges were framed before the Criminal Court and the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1604/2009 had categorically stated that promotion of employee cannot be stalled by putting his case in sealed cover unless charges have been framed by the concerned criminal court. Annexure A-4 refers. Support has also been drawn by the applicants to the decision in Writ Petition No.2377/2006 in the case of K.K. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala and others. According to the applicants, there is no sign of criminal case fructifying to final decision as the cases instituted in 2007 continued and a number of witnesses have to be examined. In view of the same, the applicants, relying upon certain administrative instructions of the DoPT, have prayed for the following reliefs:

    (i) To call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-9 and quash Annexure A-1.

    (ii)To direct the respondents to open the sealed cover relating to the applicant and, to promote him as Superintendent of Central Excise with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors with all consequential benefits, if found suitable.

    (iii)To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

  5. Respondents have contested the O.A...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT