DHARMBIR KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT , who has retired from Service on October 31, 2009 while working as Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs at Surat has filed this Original Application seeking to quash Annexure A -1 Memorandum of Chargesheet. According to the applicant, the impugned chargesheet is totally illegal, state and malafide. He contends that the belated attempt of the respondents to hold a disciplinary inquiry against him is wholly unjust and malafide. Annexure A -1 chargesheet is in relation to an alleged misconduct committed by the applicant between October, 2000 and June, 2001 while he was working as Deputy Commissioner at Surat. The gravamen of the charge as discernible from the statement of imputation annexed to Annexure A -1 chargesheet appears to be that the applicant had deliberately ignored the fact that two Export companies namely M/s. Suvidha Polyesters Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Angana Textile Pvt. Ltd., which were 100% export oriented units, had not been following the prescribed conditions of the notification which clearly set out the norms for clearing the goods for such export and thereby allowed the two exporters to carry on their illegal activity. The applicant failed to offer required guidance sought by his subordinate Range Superintendent. The further allegation is that the applicant did not grant any permission to the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, Range -VI, Division -V to go ahead with the visit of office of transporters and godowns and conduct proper and effective investigation in the matter. He failed to appraise the correct position in the matter of fraudulent exports undertaken by the above two Export companies to Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat - \ Commissionerate and thus aided and abetted the act of fraud and thereby encouraged the exporters to continue with their illegal activities. The further charge is that the applicant transferred the Range Superintendent with an ill motive when the said officer stood firm and objected to the unauthorised exports of the two companies. The above acts of the applicant clearly showed that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited lack of devotion to duty.

(2.) IT has been noticed already that the applicant retired from service on superannuation on October 31, 2009. However, on 27th of October, applicant was served with a xerox copy of the above chargesheet and on the next day viz., 28th of October, he was served with an attested xerox copy of the same chargesheet. Ultimately, on November 11, 2009 viz., 10 days after his retirement, applicant was served with the so called original chargesheet dated October 27, 2009, a copy of which is available on record as Annexure A -1. Applicant submitted his statement of defence on October 30, 2009 itself, immediately when he was served with the xerox copy of the chargesheet. In this written defence, applicant had stated the reasons why the said chargesheet was vitiated and void in the eye of law. It is on record that the applicant had submitted another statement on receipt of the "original chargesheet" and again sent two or three reminders with a prayer to drop the proposed departmental inquiry. Copies of these statements/representations submitted by the applicant are available on record as Annexure A -2 to A -6. But, there was no response from the authorities concerned to any one of the above representations or reminders.

(3.) THE above case had undergone several adjournments thereafter and when it was taken up for consideration on September 6, 2012, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents had not even appointed an Inquiry Officer so far, even though more than three years had lapsed after issue of the chargesheet. He further pointed out that the entire retiral benefits except provisional pension had been withheld over the last three years, putting the applicant to untold miseries and hardships, leave alone the mental torture. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the applicant is afflicted with several ailments after his retirement. Keeping in view the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant at the Bar, we had passed the following order on September 6, 2012: