K N MUTYALA RAO Vs. CHAIRMAN EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is for quashing of the order dated 2.12.2008 passed by the first respondent herein, Chairman, Export Inspection Council of India rejecting the appeal presented by the petitioner as an appellate disciplinary authority.

(2.) THE petitioner is working as an Office Assistant in the year 2005 in the office of the fourth respondent in Hyderabad. It is seen from the paper book filed before this Court that there was a news item in Enadu dated 20th January, 2005, Hyderabad Edition under the caption "THEre everything is corruption" alleging corruption in THE Inspection Agency Office, which issues certificates that the items exported to foreign countries are produced in India. THE news item alleged that without paying bribe, no work was executed in the office of the Inspection Agency. That Enadu and ETV team stated that the team had personally went to the office of the respondent on behalf of an exporter to collect the certificates and filmed the entire operation and thereby exposed the the clandestine corrupt practices in the Inspecting Agency. Based on the flash news in ETV II Channel in Hyderabad on 20.01.2005, televising the sting operation showing the petitioner receiving certain sum of money for the purpose of issuing GSP certificate, thus casting a shadow on the discharge of the duty as the Government servant, the fourth respondent issued a memorandum to the petitioner on 20.1.2005 and called upon the petitioner to furnish the details about the same on or before 27.1.2005.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the first respondent herein, wherein, the appellate authority, in his order dated 02nd December, 2008, pointed out that the petitioner had not denied the identity of the person as none else than the petitioner himself who was shown in the film accepting money and the petitioner had not explained as to why he was accepting money from an outsider during office hours in the office premise. Thus the appellate authority confirmed the order. It is relevant to note that the appellate authority pointed out that the petitioner had questioned the disciplinary proceedings only on technical grounds and the fact remains that the incident of bribery and corruption created extraordinary situation for the disciplinary authority, in which, the kind of evidence one looked for might not emerge. In the absence of any evidence of non-involvement, the plea of technical nature to absolve himself of the charges could not be accepted. Consequently, the punishment was confirmed. AGGRIEVED by the above-said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.