Delhi High Court
Kewal Krishna Loona vs The Secretary To The Govt. Of ... on 12 September, 2014
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 12.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 6071/2014, C.M. NO.14775/2014
KEWAL KRISHNA LOONA ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
Versus
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF FINANCE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Sh. Arnab Naskar, Advocate, for Resp.
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 22.07.2011 in O.A.
No.260/2011 whereby his challenge to the dismissal, consequent upon
his conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 was dispelled.
2. At the outset, this Court notices that there is an inordinate delay
in approaching the Court. We notice that the impugned order of CAT
is dated 22.07.2011; the petition was filed on 30.08.2014; it apparently
W.P.(C) 6071/2014 Page 1
was taken back; an affidavit in support of the petition dated
03.09.2014 is annexed.
3. Consequently, the petition can be disposed of merely on the
ground of inordinate delay and laches. Nevertheless, we heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. The sole ground urged in
these proceedings is that the invocation of Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 by the respondents, was in the circumstances of the case,
without jurisdiction since the authority to issue the dismissal order,
based upon petitioner's conviction by the criminal Court, did not have
the power to do so. To urge this ground, learned counsel relied upon
certain documents which - a reading of the CAT's order would
disclose - are not an authentic part of any notification or rules but are
some materials downloaded from the website of the Central Board of
Excise and Customs. It is sought to be urged that the competent
authority who could have made disciplinary orders in the petitioner's
case, was not the Joint Commissioner (P&V) but the Commissioner of
Customs and Central Excise (hereafter referred to as "CCE"). The
petitioner relied upon certain documents and the notification dated
22.12.2009, to argue that it was only the CCE and none else who had
the authority to issue the order of dismissal. We notice that in this
case, the order of dismissal was made on 16.09.2009, pursuant to the
petitioner's conviction on 27.01.2007 by the Special Judge, Ambala.
Facially, therefore, the reliance upon the notification of 22.12.2009,
which designates the CCE as the appointing authority for Inspector of
Customs, would be misplaced. The same notification itself clarifies
W.P.(C) 6071/2014 Page 2
that all orders made till the date of its issuance would be valid. As far
as the basic submission with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Joint
Commissioner is concerned, the CAT's findings are as follows:
"8. Now we may consider the other argument of the
applicant that the order of dismissal has been passed by the
incompetent authority. For that purpose, the applicant has
drawn our attention to certain papers, which have been
downloaded from website (copy taken on record), regarding
administrative set up. The applicant has placed emphasis on
these papers to the effect that Commissionerate is headed by
a Commissioner, who is responsible for collection of Central
Excise duty in his jurisdiction and also the appointing and
disciplinary authority for officers of Group B rank. It has
been argued on behalf of the applicant that his appointing
authority was the Commissioner, as such order of dismissal
could not have been passed by the Joint Commissioner
(P&V). The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
applicant deserves outright rejection for more than one
reason. Admittedly, the applicant was holding the post of
Inspector Customs at Foreign Post Office, Delhi. Learned
counsel for the applicant has not brought to our notice any
statutory notification or order whereby the appointing
authority of the applicant is Commissioner or the post of
Inspector has been designated as Group B and for such
Group appointing authority is Commissioner. Rather the
trial court has examined the point whether the sanction for
prosecution of the accused was validly granted and PW 1
Shri G.R. Meena, who was then posted as Deputy
Commissioner (P&V) proved the sanction. He deposed that
at that time he was the appointing authority as well as the
authority to dismiss the applicant. He has further deposed
that he received the draft sanction order and he corrected
the same on going through the material and then he gave the
formal sanction order. The trial court categorically then
recorded that the accused did not challenge the deposition
W.P.(C) 6071/2014 Page 3
of PW1 that he was the authority to dismiss him from
service."
4. In the absence of any material, such as copy of the notification
or statutory rules, to indicate that the Joint Commissioner (P&V) did
not possess the competence to issue dismissal orders against the
petitioner, and furthermore, having regard to the fact that the sanction
to the criminal prosecution - which has ultimately led to his
conviction, was also granted by the same authority, which too has
been upheld by the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the present
petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed along with the pending
application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
W.P.(C) 6071/2014 Page 4
