TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present respondent. As a result, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has quashed the memorandum dated 19th May, 2006 whereby the declaration was made by the appointing authority to hold the disciplinary inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 2. The respondent was an officer of the 1992 batch of the Indian Revenue Service of the Customs & Central Excise Services. During the relevant period, the respondent was posted as an Assistant Commissioner, with the service. 3. Investigations were initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at Mumbai against five benami companies namely M/s R.S. & Company, M/s Stitch & Style, M/s Himgiri Overseas, M/s Deepshikha Overseas and M/s Saharanpur Handicr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner as well. 7. The petitioners thereafter issued the memorandum dated 19th May, 2006 intending to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and informed him of the charges which pertained to the afore-noticed export transaction only. The respondent submitted a reply on 1st September, 2006 and nothing happened thereafter for a period of over one and a half years. 8. It is to be noted that the respondent assailed the memo dated 19th May, 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No.1690 of 2007. More than six months after the filing of the petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent, the petitioners issued an order dated 4th March, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... export of the goods. Our attention has also been drawn to the action of the respondent in stopping the payment of claim to the disputed companies and also the dues of the respondents which show that there was no engagement of the respondent with the companies in question. 13. An important circumstance which has weighed with the Central Administrative Tribunal in accepting the challenge by the respondent is the fact that the allegations pertained to transactions of the year 1998 while the charge-sheet was issued as back as in the year 2006 based on material which was in the power, possession and knowledge of the petitioners in the year 1998 as well. The case was investigated by two agencies, firstly the Department of Revenue Intelligence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accepted Joseph Kuok's challenge by way of an order dated 16th May, 2011 holding that the disciplinary proceedings were untenable because of unexplained and unwarranted delay in initiation of the departmental inquiry against Joseph Kuok. This order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the petitioners and has attained finality. 16. A third person namely Hari Singh who was working as an Inspector with the Customs department at the relevant time, was also issued a similar memorandum of charges in respect of the same transaction. The present petitioners (respondents in the challenge by Hari Singh) relied on the same show cause notice under the Customs Act and the inquiry report as in the present case. Hari Singh's challenge to the memorandu....