UNION OF INDIA Vs. M S BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.Nos. 1567/2010 (exemptions) Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM No.1569/2010 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of. The petitioners in the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the learned Tribunal has quashed the charge sheet issued to the respondent after ten years of the date of the incident, more particularly because even the allegations were not particularized.

(2.) It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case there is a delay of more than 11 years in issuing the charge sheet to the respondent who has already retired on 1.4.2009 as Superintendent (Customs & Central Excise) after completing 27 years of service.

(3.) The allegations made against the respondent pertains to the year 1997 when he was posted in Export Shed at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. As per the charge sheet issued to the respondent, the allegations made against him were as under:- STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI M.S. BHATIA, SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI ARTICLE-I That during his posting in Export Shed at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, Shri M.S. Bhatia, Supreindent, had given "let export" order in respect of Shipping Bills No. 1033401 to 1033403 and 1033411 all dated 23.9.98 without exercising necessary checks and scrutiny of documents in respect of the above mentioned shipping bills, thus, causing a loss of Rs. 12,06,819/- to the Govt. exchequer by way of disbursement of duty drawback to a firm M/s Rohini International having its office at H-305, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, as no remittance has been received against the goods exported under the above mentioned shipping bills. He, thus, failed to maintain absolute integrity in discharge of his duty with devotion and diligence, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant. He also did not act in his best judgment and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (PRAVEEN JAIN) COMMISSIONER