Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shri K. Ananthapadmanabha Rao, was serving as a Superintendent of Central Tax in the North West Commissionerate. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge memorandum dated 10 October 2023 was issued.

Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, an enquiry report dated 27 December 2024 was submitted. Thereafter, a disagreement note dated 31 March 2025 was issued, whereby the charges framed against the petitioner were treated as proved.

Parallel to the disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings were pending in Special C.C. No. 29/2023. The petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 2, had filed an application seeking discharge. The discharge application had been argued and was pending consideration before the Sessions Court/Special Court.

In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 7 November 2025 requesting an opportunity of personal hearing before any further decision was taken in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner specifically brought to the disciplinary authority’s notice that the discharge application in the criminal proceedings was pending and had been posted for orders.

Despite this request, Respondent No. 1 proceeded to pass Order-in-Original No. 01/2025 dated 10 November 2025, dismissing the petitioner from service as Superintendent of Central Tax.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court seeking, inter alia, quashing of the dismissal order, reinstatement with retrospective salary and applicable interest, or alternatively appropriate relief concerning the appellate remedy.

The record further showed two significant subsequent developments:

First, the Sessions Court/Special Court, by order dated 14 January 2026, allowed the petitioner’s application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and discharged him from the alleged offences under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Second, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by Order-in-Appeal Nos. 939-943/2025 dated 30 December 2025, allowed the connected Customs appeals by way of remand under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.

These subsequent developments were relied upon by the petitioner as having a direct and substantial bearing on the dismissal order.

Background of the Underlying Customs and Criminal Proceedings

The broader dispute arose from allegations concerning illegal export of Red Sanders wood.

According to the material reproduced in the judgment, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted two export consignments booked under Shipping Bill Nos. 3378541 and 3378546, both dated 26 July 2021. The consignments were declared as “Industrial Ductile Pipes”, but examination allegedly revealed 106 logs of Red Sanders wood weighing 3.293 MT and valued at approximately Rs. 62.655 lakh.

The investigation further alleged that five earlier consignments involving 6.821 MT of Red Sanders wood valued at approximately Rs. 129.77 lakh had already been fraudulently exported by misdeclaration.

In relation to the petitioner, the Customs adjudication proceedings concerned, among other matters, the grant of Let Export Order for Shipping Bill No. 2190821 dated 3 June 2021. The original Customs adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,81,461 upon the petitioner under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

However, the connected Customs appellate proceedings were subsequently remanded for fresh examination.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the dismissal order dated 10 November 2025 could be sustained when the petitioner’s specific request dated 7 November 2025 for a personal hearing had neither been considered nor referred to before passing the order.
  2. Whether denial of sufficient and reasonable opportunity of personal hearing amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice.
  3. Whether the subsequent discharge order dated 14 January 2026 passed by the Sessions Court/Special Court had a direct and substantial bearing on the dismissal order and required consideration by the disciplinary authority.
  4. Whether the Customs appellate order dated 30 December 2025 remanding the connected adjudication proceedings for de novo consideration was a relevant circumstance requiring fresh consideration of the disciplinary matter.
  5. Whether the existence of an equally efficacious alternative appellate remedy barred the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when the impugned order suffered from violation of natural justice.
  6. Whether the matter should be remitted to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration after granting sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that he had specifically requested an opportunity of personal hearing through his representation dated 7 November 2025.

The request was based on the fact that his discharge application in Special C.C. No. 29/2023 had already been argued and was pending for orders before the Sessions Court/Special Court.

It was submitted that the likely outcome of the parallel criminal proceedings was material and relevant to the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner should have been allowed to personally place the developments before the disciplinary authority.

The petitioner argued that despite the specific request for personal hearing, the disciplinary authority passed the dismissal order only three days later, on 10 November 2025, without granting sufficient and reasonable opportunity.

It was further contended that the impugned dismissal order neither adverted to nor referred to the petitioner’s specific request for personal hearing.

The petitioner relied upon the subsequent order dated 14 January 2026 whereby the Sessions Court/Special Court allowed his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and discharged him from the alleged offences under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner submitted that this discharge order had a direct and substantial bearing upon the dismissal order.

The petitioner also relied upon the Customs appellate order dated 30 December 2025, under which the connected Customs proceedings were remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. It was argued that this development also had a bearing upon the disciplinary dismissal order.

Accordingly, the petitioner sought setting aside of the dismissal order and remand of the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents opposed the writ petition and reiterated the contentions raised in their statement of objections.

The principal objection was that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.

The respondents specifically contended that the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned dismissal order.

Accordingly, it was argued that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition and that the petitioner should be relegated to the available appellate remedy.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court found that the impugned dismissal order had been passed on 10 November 2025.

The Court noted that approximately three days earlier, on 7 November 2025, the petitioner had submitted a representation specifically seeking an opportunity of personal hearing because his discharge application in Special C.C. No. 29/2023 was pending consideration before the Sessions Court/Special Court.

The Court further took note of the fact that the Sessions Court/Special Court subsequently allowed the discharge application on 14 January 2026.

The High Court also considered the Customs appellate proceedings, in which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had set aside the original adjudication outcome to the relevant extent and remitted the connected matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The Court held that these facts and circumstances clearly indicated that the respondent was not justified in declining the petitioner’s request for personal hearing, particularly when the petitioner had specifically brought to the authority’s notice that his discharge application was pending before the Special/Sessions Court.

The High Court recorded that the respondent:

  • did not advert to the petitioner’s request for personal hearing;
  • did not refer to the request in the impugned order; and
  • did not provide an opportunity of personal hearing.

The Court therefore held that the dismissal order was clearly violative of the principles of natural justice and warranted interference.

Consequently, the High Court found it appropriate to set aside the dismissal order and remit the matter to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Alternative Remedy Does Not Bar Writ Jurisdiction Where Natural Justice Is Violated

A particularly important finding concerns the respondents’ objection regarding availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

The High Court rejected this contention.

The Court held that, in view of its finding that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice, the mere availability of an appeal remedy would not prevent the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the respondents’ objection based upon the existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy was expressly rejected.

Final Order of the High Court

The High Court passed the following operative directions:

  • The writ petition was allowed.
  • Order-in-Original No. 01/2025 dated 10 November 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 was set aside.
  • The matter was remitted to Respondent No. 1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
  • The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 18 May 2026 without awaiting further notice.
  • Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents and other material before Respondent No. 1.
  • Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider such material, provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

The High Court did not finally decide whether the disciplinary charges against the petitioner were proved or disproved on merits.

The Court also did not direct unconditional reinstatement with retrospective salary and interest as a final substantive consequence.

The operative relief was procedural and remedial: the dismissal order was set aside because the petitioner’s specific request for personal hearing was not considered and sufficient and reasonable opportunity was not provided.

The matter was therefore remanded for fresh reconsideration.

It is equally important that the High Court took note of the subsequent discharge order and the Customs appellate remand order as circumstances bearing upon the disciplinary matter, but the High Court did not itself finally adjudicate the disciplinary liability on the basis of those subsequent orders.

The fresh decision remains to be taken by Respondent No. 1 after considering additional pleadings and documents and after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

Sections Involved

·         Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

·         Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

·         Section 197 Cr.P.C.

·         Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962

·         Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962

·         Section 114 and Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962

·         Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962

·         Sections 120-B and 420 IPC

·         Sections 7, 8 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783502109_1473compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.