K Ram Singh Naik vs REVENUE on 27 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA) NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004 Order Sheet Item no.: 6 O.A./42/2024 (TELANGANA) [ PENALTY ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 25 Order Dated: 27/10/2026 K RAM SINGH NAIK Vs REVENUE

For Applicant(s) Advocate : KRKV PRASAD

For Respondent(s) Advocate : D LAXMI NARAYANA RAO Order of The Tribunal Learned counsels for the parties are present. Learned counsel for the respondents has furnished documents dt. 06.02.2020 and 10.12.2018. The punishment given vide order, dt. 10.12.2018, has been reduced by the appellate authority, vide order, dt. 06.02.2020. The CFA has pointed out that in the tentative opinion of the DA, no case was made out, as seen from the 2nd stage advice, vide letter, dt. 26.07.2022 of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (A7). The IO's report is annexed at A5. The point raised by the counsel for the applicant is that the DA was influenced by the opinion of the DG Vigilance, because of which he imposed a penalty, even though he had earlier agreed with the findings of the IO that the charges against the applicant are not proved. As per para 8.2.5 of the IOs report, offence is not proved. This ground is taken at para 5.1.3 of the OA.

He has cited judgments through a memo filed on 06.08.2026 at pg.

3. In the context of paras 42 & 43 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in 2025 SCC online SC 890 at (Annex-A3), it is argued that, even though the applicant had faced the inquiry on the complaint of Mr. Ajay Kumar Kuradia, the IO had not accepted the allegation and held that the charge was not proved. The department has relied upon the unsubstantiated allegation of Inspector S. Maheshwar, who was the co-accused in the CBI case of trap. But, in the departmental inquiry, he is not cited/examined as a witness. As seen from the judgments of the 3rd Addl. Judge for CBI cases, the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe was not proved (paras 31 & 75). He has also relied upon para 7 in order, dt. 19.05.2026, in WP.CT 75 of 2010 of the Calcutta High Court (paras 12, 13, 15 & 17). Referring to the point made regarding the extraneous influence of the DG Vigilance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, the CFR has been asked to explain under which rule the Vigilance Department is competent to advise the DA in such matters. Mr. D. Laxmi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Respondents, concedes that there is no direct evidence of demand or bribe by the applicant in the present case. Orders reserved. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member (A) K Adilaxmi ( court master )