Central Administrative Tribunal
Arunkumar Shankarprasad Sharma vs Central Excise,customs & Service Tax on 2 November 2026
::1 ::
OA No. 180/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BECH
Original Application No. 180/2019
Dated this the 02nd day of November, 2026.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
1.
Shri Arunkumar,
Son of Shri Shankarprasad Sharma,
Age : 28 years, working as Inspector
In the office of the respondents,
Residing at : A/403, Stuti Avista,
Nr. Patanpur Jakat Naka,
Surat – 395 001.
…Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S. Trivedi)
V/s.
1.
The Principal Commissioner,
O/o. Principal Commissioner,
Customs House, 1st Floor,
Opp. Old High Court,
Navarangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009.
2.
The Deputy Commissioner,
O/o. Dy. Commissioner,
Customs Division, Sagrampura,
Surat – 395 002.
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R.R. Patel)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (Judicial)
1. In the instant OA, applicant being aggrieved with the charge memorandum dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure A/1) issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 mainly on the ground that Article of Charges,
PRATIK VYAS
::2 :: OA No. 180/2019
RuDs as well as List of Witnesses attached to the charge memorandum are identical in nature with the pending criminal proceedings against him, has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
2. The core submission of learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.S. Trivedi is that if departmental inquiry instituted against the applicant is concluded, the same will cause serious prejudice to his ongoing criminal proceedings.
3. On receipt of notice, issued by this Tribunal, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. 3.1 Ms. R.R. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents in this regard by referring the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. UoI submitted that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegation.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the applicant relied upon various judgments including the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition (S) No. 2449 of 2021 in the matter of Shashank Sharma S/o Late Sunil Sharma Vs State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. Decided on 16.06.2021 and submits that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant be deferred till all the witnesses in the departmental enquiry who are also witnesses in the criminal case, are examined before the Trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents by following the principal of natural justice shall initiate the departmental proceedings according to the Rules.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. At the outset, it is required to mention that undisputedly, the charges levelled against the applicant in the impugned charge memorandum
PRATIK VYAS
::3 :: OA No. 180/2019
dated 28.03.2019 and to sustain the charge, the Relied Upon Documents and the witnesses cited attached to the charge memorandum are common in nature with the pending criminal proceedings i.e., Criminal Case No. 15/2015 before the Special Court Surat.
8. By considering the relied upon judgment by the applicant, we dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents to differ the departmental inquiry initiated against the applicant for a period of six months or till examining of those prosecution witnesses who are witnesses in the departmental inquiry, whichever is earlier. After that, the department shall resume the departmental proceedings against the applicant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, OA stands disposed of. MA pending if any, also stands disposed of.
Sanjiv Kumar
Jayesh V Bhairavia Member (A)
Member(J)
/pratik/
PRATIK VYAS