RAJESH GUPTA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT 's challenge in this Original Application is against the Memorandum No. C.14011/62/2011 -Ad. V dated 22.02.2011 issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 proposing to hold an enquiry against him. The imputation of misconduct or mis -behaviour in which enquiry was proposed as set out in the enclosed statement of Articles of Charges are as under: -

(2.) THOSE statements of Articles of Charge are proposed to be sustained by a list of 15 documents. However, according to the said Memorandum, there are no witnesses to sustain them. Applicant has challenged the aforesaid Memorandum on the ground that it was issued patently on a wrong premise that the orders in original passed by him have resulted in benefiting the assessee, namely, M/s. J.K. Cement Works Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2,06,23,357/ -. According to him, the aforesaid sum was sanctioned, quantified, allowed and disbursed by way of adjustment by his predecessor vide Orders -in -Original No. 233/2003 -CE (Ref) dated 23.05.2003 and 385/2003 -CE (Ref) dated 19.08.2003. He has also stated no amount was either sanctioned or disbursed consequent to the orders passed by him which are the subject matter of the impugned Memorandum. Further, according to him, there is nothing on record to establish that he had committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge -sheet and in all the documents relied upon in the matter, there is nothing adverse against him and none of them disclosed any connivance, lapse or misdemeanor on his part. He has also stated that by issuing the aforesaid charge sheet, he was subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as he was singled out for issuance of the charge sheet for holding the view that the claims were not hit by bar of unjust enrichment though his predecessor in the orders No. 233/2003 -CE (Ref) dated 23.05.2003 and 385/2003 -CE (Ref) dated 19.08.2003 has also held the same view. Another ground stressed by the learned counsel for the Applicant Ms. Shika Sapra is that there was inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet. She has pointed out that according to the charge sheet, the alleged incident has occurred during the period from 11.04.2007 to 24.05.2010 and the charge sheet was issued only on 22.02.2011. She has also stated that it is not the case of the Respondents that the allegation against him was not known to them but they have purposely issued the charge sheet to harass him at the fag end of his service. He has stated that the Applicant had superannuated on 31.01.2012 and the enquiry was unnecessarily being continued against him under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further according to her, the very purpose of proposed enquiry is defeated as there are not prosecutions witnesses to sustain the charges leveled against the Applicant.

(3.) FURTHER , according to him, the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and Applicant would get adequate opportunity to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of A.P. and Others Vs. V. Appala Swamy, 2007(1) SCALE 1. He has also submitted that there was no deliberate or inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo inasmuch as the matter was under correspondence/investigation.