TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple laid down by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGAT'), without there being any interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ! The petitioner retired from service, last holding the post of an Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Central Excise and Customs at Patiala, on 31.3.1994. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.4.1996, after two years of his demitting office. This charge-sheet is stated to have been withdrawn on account of lack of sanction from the competent authority and a fresh charge-sheet was issued on 16.3.1998. The factual matrix, which gave rise to the charge-sheet, arises on account of the adjudication by the petitioner of a dispute qua Classification Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was sent to the department and no objection is stated to have been raised and, consequently, the petitioner decided the demand cases arising from the classification dispute in favour of the assessees. The Memorandum dated 16.3.1998, which is in question, was issued with Article of Charges imputing that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, inasmuch as :- "(i) adjudicated the cases transgressing monetary limit fixed for Assistant Collector; and (ii) vacated the demands knowing fully well that the department had gone in appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue which was pending with the Apex Court at that time." The stand of the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of any financial loss in the present matter. The petitioner having denied the Article of Charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted the inquiry report dated 31.3.2003, concluding that both the charges stood established. The petitioner, on being supplied a copy of the same, made a representation dated 19.5.2003. The disciplinary authority, however, by an order dated 30.8.2005, upheld the report of the Inquiry Officer and imposed a penalty of 30% cut in the monthly pension. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which, however, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 2.7.2007. A perusal of the impugned order shows that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the exercise of statutory power. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Duli Chand, 2006-III LLJ 221, opining that while performing judicial or quasi judicial functions, if the authority acted negligently or omitted essential conditions prescribed for exercise of such power, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated. The Tribunal observed that the views expressed in Zuniarrao Bhikail Nagarkar's case (supra) would not be the correct legal position, in view of the observations of the larger Bench in K.K. Dhawan's case (supra). The judgment in Zuniarrao Bhikail Nagarkar's case (supra) was, in fact, held not to be a good law, in Duli Chand's case (supra). T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracted the higher rate of duty and the other lower rate of duty." Learned counsel for the respondents did seek to contend that though there was no financial loss to the Department as the judicial view of the CEGAT was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that would not make a difference to the matter in issue because the conduct of the petitioner has to be seen on the date he passed the order. However, as observed aforesaid, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, there was no limitation in his power, in view of the Circular itself having carved out an exception qua the cases relating to approval of Classification Lists. Insofar as the second aspect of the charges is concerned i.e. that the Department had gone in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pending decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the differential duty component as demands were raised repeatedly against the various assessees but yet the petitioner chose to vacate those demands. We fail to appreciate this plea for the reason that the petitioner would have no option but to act in accordance with the judicial hierarchy of the appellate authority being CEGAT, which had already expressed its view on the issue of this classification vide order dated 20.12.1990. Not only that, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer that identical orders were passed by other officers, as per Exhibits D- 5, D-6 and D-7 placed before the Inquiry Officer, where the same orders of the CEGAT had been followed. We find it....