TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dixit, Advocate Mr. S.K. Dixit, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) All the three writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In C.W.J.C. No. 1957 of 2019 the original respondent, Late Prem Bahadur Lal died during the pendency of the writ petition. By order dated 16.09.2019 his widow Leela Devi has been allowed to be substituted in place of her late husband. However, for the sake of clarity and convenience, the reference in the present order to the respondent would mean the husband of aforesaid Leela Devi who at the relevant time was Inspector Customs and Central Excise, Land Custom Station, Jogbani during 20002001, who was subjected to a departmental proceeding and was imposed with a penalty of 50% cut in his pension for five years. In C.W.J.C. No. 2007 of 2019, the sole respondent, at the relevant time, was posted as Inspector, Customs, Land Custom Station, Jogbani, who too has been subjected to a punishment of reduction of 50% cut in his pension for fiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000-02 when the respondents were posted at Jogbani with the mandate of issuing export orders. On the first stage advice dated 12.09.2016 of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Board of Excise and Customs (now Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs), major penalty proceedings were initiated against two officers of the Surat Zone, 13 officers of the Lucknow Zone and 16 officers of the Patna/Ranchi Zone including the respondents. The respondents were served with a charge memorandum alleging that he connived with the exporters for helping them obtain certificate of export without actual export for fulfilling their export obligation as 100% EOU by issuance of export orders fraudulently. It was thus charged that the respondents as Inspectors of the department had contravened Rule 3(I)(II)(III) of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964. The enquiry officer submitted a report which though cast suspicion on the respondents but in the absence of any direct evidence, held that the charge of connivance of the respondents with Surat based exporters, giving them certificates of export without actual export, no appraisal or crossing formalities having been done at the concerned Land Custom Station ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise, Patna did not accept the report of the enquiry officer as it was lopsided and recorded his note of disagreement with respect to each article of charge in compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 15 (II) of CCS (CCA Rules), 1965 and called upon the respondents to show cause as to why the enquiry report should not be rejected and appropriate penalty be not imposed upon him. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report, the defence of the respondents and all other relevant materials, imposed a penalty under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the respondents and vide letter dated19.03.2012, forwarded the records of the case to the Government for decision by the Ministry on behalf of the President under Rule 9. Thereafter the matter was referred to the UPSC for its advice who vide letter dated 13.02.2013 opined that in view of grave misconduct committed by the respondents, 50% pension be deducted for five years. Again, the advice of the UPSC was forwarded to the respondents for submitting his representation and ultimately the order dated 08.07.2013 was passed directing for 50% cut in the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the respondents for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment of Nepal had also confirmed that none of the consignments which is said to have been dispatched to the importers in Nepal had ever been received in Nepal. The evidence which was taken note of by the disciplinary authority was that there was no evidence of any physical verification of the goods except for endorsement in the crossing register and the signature of the crossing officer on the bills of export. The invoices mentioned in the bills of export were in different formats which were signed by different authorized representatives of the exporter within a short period of time. No evidence was found by the disciplinary authority to establish the local custom of using tyre carts to export goods. The disciplinary authority also found that the enquiry officer blindly accepted the contentions of the respondent and submitted a report which was not at all fair, proper and acceptable. Thus, we find that the note of difference was not the reiteration of the second stage advice of the CVO but an independent assessment of the disciplinary authority on and of the materials available on record. The note of difference reflects an independent application of mind and the response of th....