Failure to Disclose Acquisition of Family Property: Madras HC Sets Aside CAT Order Granting Notional Promotion to Customs Officer [Read Order]
It was also clarified if the officer is ultimately exonerated, the Court directed that he must be granted notional promotions and retirement benefits without forcing him to re-approach the Tribunal
The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, which had quashed disciplinary proceedings and granted notional promotions to a senior Customs officer.
The Court held that the Tribunal erred in intervening prematurely when the disciplinary process had not yet reached its logical conclusion.
Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here
V. Kannathasan, the respondent in the present case, who joined service as an Appraiser in 1994 and rose to the post of Deputy Commissioner by 2010, faced a CBI case in 2009 alleging disproportionate assets under the Prevention ofCorruption Act.
Though he was acquitted by the CBI Court in 2018, departmental proceedings were initiated against him through a charge memo issued in December 2016. The charge was that he had failed to disclose acquisition of immovable properties in the names of his close relatives, including his brother, sister, wife, and mother-in-law as well as certain investments, in violation of Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The enquiry initially found the charges “not proved”, but upon remand by the disciplinary authority under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a revised enquiry report partially held the charges proved, particularly with respect to properties acquired by his siblings. Based on this, disciplinary proceedings remained pending.
Despite this, the officer approached the CAT seeking quashing of the charge memo and a direction for notional promotion to the posts of Joint Commissioner (from 2015) and Additional Commissioner (from 2018). The Tribunal allowed his plea, holding that there had been a violation of natural justice and undue delay, and directed that he be extended promotions with consequential benefits.
The Union of India challenged this decision before the High Court. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan agreed with the government’s stance that the CAT had overstepped its jurisdiction.
The Bench observed that while the Tribunal could have remanded the matter for compliance with natural justice, it could not quash the proceedings altogether and substitute its own directions on promotion.
The Court clarified that disclosure obligations under Rule 18 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules apply only to family members wholly dependent on the government servant. Since the enquiry report did not establish that the officer’s siblings were dependent on him, the charge required proper consideration by the disciplinary authority, not judicial substitution.
The Bench further said that neither the High Court nor the Tribunal can act as a disciplinary authority to impose or negate punishments the matter must be finalized by the competent authority.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CAT’s order and directed the authorities to complete the disciplinary process within three months, taking into account the CBI Court’s acquittal and the Central Vigilance Commission’s guidelines, which treat non-disclosure as a technical lapse ordinarily warranting only a censure or warning.
It was also clarified if the officer is ultimately exonerated, the Court directed that he must be granted notional promotions and retirement benefits without forcing him to re-approach the Tribunal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
