TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vikrant Overseas and allowed them to avail undue Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefits to the tune of about Rs. 8.61 Crores at the cost of Government exchequer. He allowed final processing of shipping bills and the consignments to be "let exported". Shri Bamin Tari, the then DC, did not alert/supervise the subordinate staff i.e. Superintendents/ Inspectors concerned to verify the genuineness of the export product in terms of description, quality, and value or to order for specific examination thereof. Shri Bamin Tari, Deputy Commissioner cleared consignment even after seeing the samples personally. Shri Bamin Tari as the then Deputy Commissioner failed both in his capacity as a supervising officer and as an assessing/examining officer. He thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and also failed to discharge his duty with devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Thus, he contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i),(ii) and (iii) and Rule 3(2) (i) and (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II Shri Bamin Tari, the then Deputy Commissioner, facilitated the Customs clearance of cheap quality export consignments of the firms controlle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment of India had also initiated proceedings by way of a Show Cause Notice dated 13.9.2004 alleging violation of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, which culminated in the adjudication order of the then Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi i.e. Shri Gurban Singh, exonerating Bamin Tari. In this context it was also contended that although on a subsequent date another Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) had imposed penalty upon Bamin Tari and other Custom Officers on denovo proceedings, the said orders imposing penalty were eventually set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 1676/2010. Further ground of challenge was that the respondent authorities had deliberately and with malafide intention issued the memo of charges at the time when he was due for promotion to the grade of Commissioner. According to him, the said proceeding had been initiated only to deny promotion benefit on the pretext of pendency of a disciplinary proceeding where the cause of action related to a period which was 12 (twelve) years old. 4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioners herein (Union of India & ors.) primarily raised four points. Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the de novo proceedings by Shri A.P.S. Suri, Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), had been quashed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court only on the writ petition filed by one Shri S.L. Bansal and not by Bamin Tari and said Shri Bansal had since taken voluntary retirement. (iii) The setting aside of the orders by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court operates in restoring the matter to the stage prior to the passing of the orders by Shri A.P.S. Suri and, therefore, the proceedings under the Customs Act cannot be held to have attained finality. (iv) The delay caused in initiating the departmental proceedings was due to various complexities and no prejudice had been caused to the charged officer. 7. We have heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned ASGI for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. At the outset it would be apposite to notice the grounds of challenge made to the memorandum of charges before the Tribunal. The statements made in paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the Original Application sets out the case of Bamin Tari, which are reproduced hereunder: "5.2 For that, on the same set of alleged chares, the C.B.I. premier invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings which were initiated under Sec. 114 of the relevant Customs Act, 1962, in the same set of allegation, charges which are brought against the applicant in the memorandum of charge dated 07.03.2014 after inordinate delay of more than 12 years without giving any reasonable explanation and on that score alone the impugned charge memo dtd. 05/07.03.2014 is liable to be set aside and quashed. 5.5 For that, subsequently Shri A.P.Suri another Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) subsequently passed denovo adjudication order dtd. 08.12.2009, 21.12.2009, 22.12.2009, 23.12.2009 and 23.12.2009. In the said denovo orders Shri Suri, Commissioner, Central Excise imposed penalty upon all the Custom officers including the applicant, ignoring and overlooking the earlier adjudication order passed by Shri Gurban Singh, the then Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication). Being highly aggrieved other Custom officers approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for imposition of penalty upon them by Shri A.P.Suri and challenged the validity of those adjudication order by filing WP(C)No.1676 of 2010 and W.P.(C) 1676/2010, however, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explanation. Not to be left without mention, proceedings had taken place in the interregnum at the instance of the CBI and the DRI which concluded in favour of Bamin Tari. Most pertinently, it is not the case of the petitioners that the department was not aware of the alleged irregularities until twelve years had passed. 12. Reference can be had to the following decisions of the Apex Court as to the fate of the disciplinary proceedings in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, which decisions had been noticed and relevant extracts reproduced by the Tribunal : (i) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh- [1990(Supp) SCC 738] (ii) P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.,T.N.Housing Board- [(2005)6 SCC 636] 13. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo dated 5.3.2014/7.3.2014 is stated to have taken place in 2002-2003. Apparently, the department cannot feign ignorance and say that it came to learn of it only in the year 2014. This is belied by the very fact that the department was alive to the investigations made by CBI and the proceedings before the DRI. It is not comprehende....