TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired to be paid by the assessee on revision of prices for the sale from the depot and for the goods removed for own use for which the factory gate prices were not available. The first respondent made only an endorsement in the RT 12 Assessment Form for each month and informed the assessee that they were liable to pay differential duty of Rs.27,30,692-. Since the assessee did not pay the differential duty, they were not issued with show cause notice as per the instructions of the Customs and Central Excise Board. It was also alleged that in terms of Rule 173-C(4) of the Central Excise Rules, an obligation is caused on the Assessing Officer (first respondent) and that he did not follow the said rule. The said assessee filed 8 appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals each one for every month and four appeals were decided on merits. The Appellate commissioner held that the demands made in the RT-12 assessment suffered from the vice and violation of principle of natural justice as the demand cannot be made by a mere endorsement in the RT-12. Since no notice was issued within the limitation period, the impugned order was set aside. This, according to the petitioners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such matter. It was also contended that wrong interpretation of law cannot be a ground for misconduct. In the absence of any deliberate act or any action actuated by mala fides, no such action can be taken. 5. Even before this Court, reliance was placed on the following passage found in paragraphs 40, 42 and 43 of the Nagarkar's case (cited supra) were pressed into service. Para 40: "When we talk of negligence in a quasi-judicial adjudication, it is not negligence perceived as carelessness, inadvertence or omission but as culpable negligence. This is how this Court in State of Punjab v. Ex-Constable Ram Singh interpreted "misconduct" not coming within the purview of mere error in judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of duty. In the case of K.K. Dhawan the allegation was of conferring undue favour upon the assessees. It was not a case of negligence as such. In Upendra Singh case the charge was that he gave illegal and improper directions to the assessing officer in order to unduly favour the assessee. The case of K.S. Swaminathan was not where the respondent was acting in any quasi-judicial capacity. This Court said that at the stage of framing of the ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order in the Appellate Tribunal could not be enough to proceed against the appellant. There is no other instance to show that in similar case the appellant invariably imposed penalty." Para 43: "If every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi-judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi-judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coming of a government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; (vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great"." 9. In fact, subsequently, K.K. Dhawan's case was to be considered by the Supreme Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. K.N. Ramamurthy [1997 (7) SCC 101] wherein the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal in quashing the punishment of an officer, who was discharging judicial function by observing that the order of the Tribunal was contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court. 10. In normal course, we would have had no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal on the strength of the order of the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Duli Chand case (cited supra). But, however, subsequent to the Duli Chand case, the Supreme Court in two occasions had considered the effect of the Nagarkar's case. 11. In Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he accused did not make demand of any amount from the complainant and thus no case has been made out against him. This Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India has categorically held: "42. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information which is vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter. There must exist reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed against the delinquent officer. Merely because penalty was not imposed and the Board in the exercise of its power directed filing of appeal against that order in the Appellate Tribunal could not be enough to proceed against the appellant. There is no other instance to show that in similar case the appellant invariably imposed penalty." 14. Once again, in this matter also, there is no reference to the earlier three Judge Bench judgment in Duli Chand's case. However, since Nagarkar's case was found to be contrary to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in K.K.Dhawan case wherein the Supreme Court had laid down six instances under which a Government servant discharging quasi-judicial function can be proceeded in a disci....