Union Of India Vs v.Kannathasan — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

Union Of India Vs v.Kannathasan — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order in OA/310/00416/2022 dated 10.01.2024 set aside. Directions: (i) as above; (ii) respondents to complete the disciplinary process within three months of receiving a copy of the order and intimate the result to the applicant; (iii) disciplinary authority, at the time of disposing of the proceedings, to take into consideration Rule 18(2) and 18(3) read with Rule 2(c)(i) to 2(c)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the CBI Court judgment in C.C.No.4 of 2013 dated 26.04.2018; (iv) if the disciplinary proceedings go in the applicant's favour, grant notional promotion in accordance with extant rules without requiring a fresh Tribunal visit; (v) if the applicant is exonerated, grant the amounts due at retirement (applicant currently receives only provisional pension). Connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P.No.9469 of 2024 closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.310/00416/2022 & MA.310/00470/2023 dated 10.01.2024 — quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memorandum 47/2016 dated 06.12.2016 and granting promotional reliefs — could be sustained, or whether the writ petitioners should be allowed to conclude those proceedings. +6 more

Court's answer

Where the Tribunal finds a violation of principles of natural justice, the normal procedure is to set aside the proceedings and remand them for fresh disposal; instead, the Tribunal quashed the entire proceedings and gave a direction for notional promotion — an erroneous approach.

Ratio / Principle

Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowers the disciplinary authority to remit the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and report; Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) are two separate powers, and no restriction that Rule 15(2) alone is available can be read into the Rules.

Key takeaways

K.R. Deb (AIR 1971 SC 1447) does not advance the applicant's case: it was rendered under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (whose Rule 15(1) was extracted and is not in pari materia with the 1965 Rules), and since Rules 15(2) and 15(2-A) of the 1965 Rules came into force only on 02.09.2000, a judgment based on the earlier rules cannot be used as a precedent here.ratio¶34
There was no violation of audi alteram partem: the disciplinary authority remitted the case so that the CBI Court judgment dated 26.04.2018 be placed on record with a reasonable opportunity to the defence; since the judgment went in favour of the applicant, no situation of admitting new oral evidence arose, and the Court cannot see how the principle was violated.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Division Bench: M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ.; order by V. Lakshminarayanan, J.), W.P.No.8524 of 2024 (connected W.M.P.No.9469 of 2024), pronounced 09.09.2025 (reserved 20.08.2025) — Union of India (Revenue Secretary), CBIC (Chairman, Member (Admin), Under Secretary) v. V. Kannathasan (retired Deputy Commissioner, Customs) & CAT Chennai Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:2176. The Division Bench ALLOWED the writ petition and SET ASIDE the Tribunal's order dated 10.01.2024 in O.A.310/00416/2022 & MA.310/00470/2023, whereby the CAT had allowed the applicant's OA — quashing disciplinary proceedings under Charge Memorandum 47/2016 dated 06.12.2016 (alleged non-disclosure of immovable/movable assets under Rules 18(2)-(3), CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, against the backdrop of his acquittal on 26.04.2018 by the CBI Court in C.C.No.4/2013 under S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act, 1988) — and directed promotional reliefs. Held: (i) on a perceived natural-justice defect the Tribunal should have set aside and remanded for fresh disposal, not quashed the proceedings wholesale with notional promotion; (ii) remittance under Rule 15(1), CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to place the CBI judgment on record was valid — Rule 15(1) and 15(2) are separate powers, and K.R. Deb (AIR 1971 SC 1447), rendered under the 1957 Rules (Rule 15(2)/15(2-A) effective only 02.09.2000), could not be pressed as precedent; (iii) no audi alteram partem violation, the judgment having favoured the officer and no new oral evidence arising; (iv) delay plea rejected — unlike P.V. Mahadevan, employer knowledge of the non-disclosure could not be imputed, and the applicant joined both enquiries without demur; (v) Rule 18(2)/(3) disclosure duties bind only wholly/solely dependent family members (Rule 2(c)); the Enquiry Officer never found the brother/sister solely dependent, so Rule 18(2) r/w 2(c)(iii) requirements were unsatisfied; (vi) charges not vague; (vii) neither Court nor Tribunal may pre-empt punishment (e.g., censure per CVC circulars) before imposition. Directions: complete the disciplinary process within three months; consider Rule 18(2)-(3) r/w Rule 2(c)(i)-(iii) and the CBI acquittal; grant notional promotion if proceedings favour the officer and retirement dues if exonerated.

Issues for consideration

7 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.310/00416/2022 & MA.310/00470/2023 dated 10.01.2024 — quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memorandum 47/2016 dated 06.12.2016 and granting promotional reliefs — could be sustained, or whether the writ petitioners should be allowed to conclude those proceedings.¶prayer
The court held
Where the Tribunal finds a violation of principles of natural justice, the normal procedure is to set aside the proceedings and remand them for fresh disposal; instead, the Tribunal quashed the entire proceedings and gave a direction for notional promotion — an erroneous approach.ratio¶31
2.
Whether, after receipt of an enquiry report, the disciplinary authority could lawfully remit the matter to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, rather than proceeding only under Rule 15(2).¶21
The court held
Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 empowers the disciplinary authority to remit the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and report; Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) are two separate powers, and no restriction that Rule 15(2) alone is available can be read into the Rules.ratio¶34
3.
Whether confining the further enquiry to placing the CBI Court judgment dated 26.04.2018 on record — without new oral evidence — violated the principles of natural justice / audi alteram partem.¶32
The court held
There was no violation of audi alteram partem: the disciplinary authority remitted the case so that the CBI Court judgment dated 26.04.2018 be placed on record with a reasonable opportunity to the defence; since the judgment went in favour of the applicant, no situation of admitting new oral evidence arose, and the Court cannot see how the principle was violated.ratio¶33
4.
Whether the enormous delay in the commencement and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings — absent prior employer knowledge of the alleged non-disclosure — justified quashing them (cf. P.V. Mahadevan line of reasoning).¶28
The court held
The delay argument fails: unlike P.V. Mahadevan (where the charge-details were already available with the Housing Board), knowledge of the alleged non-disclosure cannot be imputed to the employer until the employer learns of it; proceedings were initiated as soon as the CBI proceedings became known, and the applicant participated in both enquiries without demur, challenging them only on the verge of retirement.ratio¶28
5.
Whether the disclosure obligations under Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 extend to properties held by relatives who are not wholly/solely dependent on the Government servant, and whether the 'proved' charges satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(2) read with Rule 2(c)(iii).¶25
The court held
Disclosure under Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 arises only when the family members of the Government servant are solely dependent upon him — evident from a combined reading with the definition of 'members of family' under Rule 2(c).ratio¶25
6.
Whether the charges framed in Charge Memorandum 47/2016 were vague, and whether such a plea (not raised before the Tribunal) could be entertained by this Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal.¶35
The court held
The charges are not vague: the applicant himself understood them and gave a reply running into several pages, showing both parties understood the nature of the charge, joined issue and let in evidence before the Enquiry Officer; the plea of vagueness stands rejected.ratio¶37
7.
Whether, in the absence of any imposed punishment, the Tribunal (or the Writ Court) could direct or pre-empt imposition of only a censure/administrative warning in light of the CVC circulars and the CBI Court's acquittal findings.¶38
The court held
Neither this Court nor the Tribunal can convert itself into a disciplinary authority and impose a punishment of censure (however favourably disposed the CVC circulars of 29.06.1999/26.02.2001 and the CBI Court findings may be); imposing punishment is an act only the disciplinary authority can perform.ratio¶38

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.310/00416/2022 & MA.310/00470/2023 dated 10.01.2024, by which the Tribunal allowed the applicant's Original Application — quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Charge Memorandum 47/2016 dated 06.12.2016 (and related orders) and directing promotional reliefs.¶41(i)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (2nd respondent) · 10.01.2024
Prior proceeding
Applicant joined service as Appraiser on 12.08.1994 at Customs House, Tuticorin; promoted as Assistant Commissioner on 22.08.2005 and as Deputy Commissioner on 22.11.2010.¶4
Prior proceeding
CBI registered case RCMA 1/2009 A/0059 on 18.11.2009; charge sheet laid before the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.4 of 2013 (RC.No.59/A/2009) alleging acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under S.13(2) read with 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.¶5
Prior proceeding
After a full-fledged trial, the CBI Court acquitted the applicant of all charges on 26.04.2018; no appeal was preferred against the acquittal.¶7
Prior proceeding
Charge memo No.47 of 2016 dated 06.12.2016 was served on the applicant; enquiry thereafter conducted by the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai.¶8
Prior proceeding
First enquiry report dated 28.08.2018 held the charges 'not proved'.¶24
Prior proceeding
Applicant made representations seeking promotion (21.06.2017; 10.09.2018; 10.06.2019); the Department replied on 08.01.2019 that promotion could not be considered as disciplinary proceedings were pending.¶11
Prior proceeding
On 14.11.2019 the disciplinary authority invoked Rule 15(1), CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and remitted the matter for further enquiry, directing the Enquiry Officer to receive the CBI Court judgment on record per Rule 14(15).¶12
Prior proceeding
Revised enquiry report dated 13.08.2020 held the charges 'proved' partially; copy forwarded to the applicant by proceedings dated 25.06.2021.¶12
Prior proceeding
O.A.No.1616 of 2019 before the Tribunal seeking quashing of the 08.01.2019 sealed-cover rejection; Tribunal directed a speaking order (passed 05.12.2019) with reference to the DoPT OM dated 24.02.2003; representation ultimately rejected on 16.08.2021 as disciplinary proceedings were pending.¶14
Prior proceeding
W.P.No.23723 of 2021 before this Court (challenging the charge memo and the 16.08.2021 proceedings) was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to approach the Tribunal.¶14
Prior proceeding
Taking advantage of the liberty, the applicant filed OA/310/00416/2022; the Tribunal passed an interim order on 19.06.2023 directing finalization of the disciplinary proceedings within four weeks, failing which it would proceed on available records.¶16
Prior proceeding
Department filed M.A.No.338 of 2023 seeking extension of ten months from 17.07.2023 to complete the disciplinary proceedings; the Tribunal disposed of the MA and the OA and allowed the OA, aggrieving the petitioners into the present writ petition.¶17