Termination of Superintendent Central Excise on the advice of the Director General of Vigilance – Advice is not mandatory – Disciplinary Authority has to take decision independently – Rules 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
In 1979, the petitioner was appointed as Inspector in Central Excise against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner submitted the caste ceritifcate dated 15.6.1971 as “Hindu Beldar” ST.
On 23.12.1994, the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent. According to the petitioner, the promotion order wrongly described him as belonging to SC category and made the representation to describe him from ST category.
In 2004, the petitioner was informed that “Beldar” mentioned in his caste certificate is not found in the ST category in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, by his reply, dated 21.3.2007, informed that the caste certificate was issued on the basis of 1971 affidavit of his father who had passed away in 1978.
On 11.9.2007, the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, was moved to verify the caste certificate. However, it was informed that Beldar is not in ST Category but in Vimukta Nomadic Tribe.
On 23.6.2008, charge-sheet was issued for gross misconduct of the petitioner for taking wrong benefit of the caste certificate.
On 11.9.2013, the punishment of removal was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
By the order dated 11.4.2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, the order dated 11.9.2013 of removal of the petitioner from service was quashed and directed reinstatement. However, it was held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any promotion and wages from the date of removal till superannuation on 30.11.2013.
HELD that Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, requires action to be taken on the inquiry report. Consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer was neither mandatory nor advice is binding on the disciplinary authority. However, in this case, the punishment of reversion to the lower post was proposed but on the advice of the Vigilance Department the petitioner was removed from service. Thus, the order of removal of the petitioner from service was not independently passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary authority has clearly surrendered its discretion to the Director General of Vigilance and abdicated powers. It is the Disciplinary Authority which has to form opinion about punishment by applying independent mind.
Judgment dated 10.4.2024 in Writ Petition No.7038 of 2022 of Dattatraya Bajrang Naik Vs. Union of India and others with connected writ petition.
