Union of India Vs V. Kannathasan (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that Tribunal cannot convert itself into a disciplinary authority and impose punishment of censure. Accordingly, order punishment of censure is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Facts- The case of the applicant is that he had joined the services of the respondents as an Appraiser. He joined duty on 12.08.1994 at the Customs House in Tuticorin. On 22.08.2005, the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner. On 22.11.2010, he was yet again, promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner.
CBI registered a case against the applicant on 18.11.2009. In pursuance of this complaint, a charge sheet was laid against the applicant before the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. The basic charge being that the applicant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income u/s. 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On account of pendency of the criminal case, the applicant had not been granted any further promotion.
On 06.12.2016, a charge memo No.47 of 2016 was served on the applicant. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. He submitted a report that the charges against the applicant were “not proved”.
