UNION OF INDIA Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us has raised a challenge to the judgment dated 8th November, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 23/2011 holding that the departmental proceedings in the present case would be an exercise in futility and result in harassment meted out to the employee after retirement. Other reasons for arriving at this finding has been noted in the judgment which we are suppose to consider hereafter.

(2.) The respondent herein was posted as Inspector at the Export Shed, Inland Container Deport (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi on 4th October, 1998, where he was assigned the duty of inspection of consignment present for export. The respondent was directed by the then Deputy Commissioner on 21st August, 1998 to attend to the clearance of two consignments pertaining to M/s. Aravali (India) Ltd. in the absence of the Superintendent having the charge of the unit as a stop-gap-arrangement. It is submitted that the respondent was not in charge of the subject export M/s. Aravali (India) Ltd. and attended to the subject AR-4s on specific instructions of the Deputy Commissioner in the absence of the regular incumbent.

(3.) It appears that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an inquiry in availment of duty drawback on export of chief quality junk UPFC pipes between 1998 and 1999 by M/s. Aravali (India) Limited, Hissar which culminated in issuance of a notice to show cause dated 21st December, 2000 to the exporter. In this notice, reliance was placed on the shipping bills of said firm with regard to the subject transaction. This show cause notice was not addressed to the respondent. It is noteworthy that nothing adverse against the respondent was mentioned therein.