TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Mishra and Ms. Saumya Madhyan, Advocates, representing Pawan Kumar Singh, respondent No. 1 in Writ-A No. 17353 of 2017. 2. Respondent No. 1 in both the petitions had challenged the charge-sheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of separate Original Applications. The charge-sheet contains four charges relating to inaccurate physical verification of goods, exaggerated valuation with regard to the market value of the export goods and attempt to export inferior variety of carpets with ulterior motives. It has been stated at the bar that the Tribunal had stayed the enquiry proceedings in both the cases. 3. During the pendency of the case before the Tribunal, it appears that the adjudication proceedings were undertak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellate Tribunal, as such the charge-sheet which contained the same charges was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal also observed that insofar as the drawback question was concerned, respondents were directed to decide this issue within a month as per the rules. 5. Sri Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the penalty and the Adjudication Order, could not have been relied upon for the purposes of determining the validity of the charge-sheet in the disciplinary proceedings against the two respondents, as the two proceedings were distinct and had their separate domains. There could be no overlapping in the two proceedings. He also submitted that Central A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority and also the Appellate Tribunal and we do not find any difference in the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and those covered in the Adjudicating Order and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Further we have also perused the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench. We find that there also the Department and Adjudication Authority had found that the Officers of the Department were not at fault and they were not punished, and accordingly the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of charges was quashed. The Apex Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and that by the Delhi High Court. 9. Although we find that the Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order may not have d....