TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns Tribunal's decision, directs swift reconsideration by Disciplinary Authority, involving UPSC if needed. Refund of benefits pending.</h1> <h3>Nagraj Nathu Borase Versus Union of India, The Commissioner Customs, (Gen) Mumbai,</h3> Nagraj Nathu Borase Versus Union of India, The Commissioner Customs, (Gen) Mumbai, - TMI Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the penalty order dated 4th August 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a withholding of 30% of the monthly pension for 5 years.Detailed Summary:Issue 1: Challenge to the Penalty OrderThe petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 19th November 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the Original Application No. 241 of 2015. The petitioner, a former Deputy Commissioner of Customs, was issued a charge sheet alleging misconduct related to the examination of goods by an exporter. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) agreed with the inquiry findings and recommended the penalty of withholding 30% of the monthly pension for 5 years. The petitioner appealed the penalty order before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority later dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, leading to the present petition challenging the penalty order.Issue 2: Arguments and Counter-argumentsThe petitioner's counsel argued that there was no evidence to support punishing the petitioner and that the findings were perverse. The petitioner's supervisory duties were emphasized, highlighting the unusual methodology adopted by the exporter. The Union of India's counsel contended that the findings were supported by evidence, alleging serious misconduct causing public loss, justifying the imposed penalty.Issue 3: Judicial AnalysisThe Court noted that while the disciplinary inquiry findings were not considered perverse, there was a need for reconsideration regarding the penalty imposition. The Court highlighted the Adjudicating Authority's subsequent dropping of proceedings after the penalty order, emphasizing the need for the Disciplinary Authority to reassess the penalty in light of these developments. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the penalty order, remanding the proceedings to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration based on CESTAT and Adjudicating Authority's orders.ConclusionThe Court directed the Disciplinary Authority to expedite the reconsideration process, consulting UPSC if necessary, and to issue a final order within six months. Depending on the outcome, further actions regarding the refund of withheld retiral benefits were to be taken. The petition was partly allowed, with the Court setting aside the Tribunal's order and the penalty, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, addressing the issues involved, arguments presented, judicial analysis, and the final conclusion reached by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
