SHRI VUNGZAMUAN VALTE S/O SHRI V. SIAMTHANG RESIDENT OF LEKI COTTAGE JINGKIENG NONGTHYMMAI SHILLONG Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Misc. Cases are heard together and disposed of by a common order. The first case is an application for issuing an interim order to stay the process of promotion for the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The writ petition is entertained by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution as the statutory tribunal, namely, Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati is currently not entertaining a case of this nature due to non-availability of the Judicial Member, who is yet to be appointed. According to the writ petitioner, during the period from 28-9-2000 to 23-8-2001, when he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi, intelligence was gathered by the DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) that certain exporters had exported several consignments of cordless microphones, fuel pump diaphragms and ready-made garments etc. to overseas importers in the USA and Dubai by mis-declaring and hugely inflating the values in order to fraudulently avail of various export incentives like Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) and Duty Drawback. Based on such intelligence inputs, proceedings under he provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 were initiated against the said exporters. The writ petitioner as well as few other officers of Customs and Central Excise, Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi were arrayed as notices in that proceedings. The charges against the writ petitioner in that proceedings were, among others, (a) laxity/dereliction of duty in no examining over-invoiced items and not verifying samples of shipping bills and (b) collusion/abetment by allowing continued provisional assessment of the shipping bills.

(2.) The writ petitioner contested the proceedings. The Commissioner, who was the adjudicating authority, upon appreciation of the materials brought on record and after recording the statements of various witnesses, did not find anything adverse against the writ petitioner and thereafter passed the order dated 27-2-2007 exonerating him of all the charges. The appeal filed by the Department before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CESTAT) was disposed of by the common judgment dated 15-3-2010 passed in a batch of 17 appeals wherein CESTAT upheld the adjudication order of the Commissioner by holding that the conduct of the writ petitioner to be unquestionable and was rightly exonerated by the Commissioner. The further case of the writ petitioner is that the respondent-authorities, in the meantime, issued the Office Memo dated 22-3-2006 initiating an enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by charging him that he colluded with the exporters by not seeing the sample drawn from every shipping bill involving FOB value of more than Rs.5 lakh's; that he continued with the provisional assessment of the shipping bills even though he had already finalised the value of goods under export and that he failed to stop the subordinate officers from processing export documents when these officers were not authorised to do so.

(3.) It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the articles of charges in the inquiry are issued on the same set of allegations and are pertaining to the same consignments dispatched by the same exporters as levelled by the Department in the proceedings under the Customs Act and the charges are sought to be proved against him by the same set of witnesses, which had been enquired into by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Unit and which resulted in exoneration of all the charges against him. Though the departmental proceeding against him was bad in law, he participated in the inquiry from March, 2006 till Dec., 2009. In the meantime, there were changes of inquiry officer for four times, which further delayed the conclusion of the inquiry. It was only on 1-9-2009, that is, after the lapse of more than three and half years that the inquiry report was submitted. The disciplinary authority thereafter took the view that a minor penalty might be imposed upon him, which was concurred with by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which advised the former accordingly. The disciplinary authority then sent the file to the UPSC for final review, and the matter is still pending now.