TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents, all the writ petitions dismissed - W.P. Nos. 154, 738-748 and 12746 of 2009, - - - Dated:- 10-11-2010 - Ghulam Mohammed and P. Swaroop Reddy, JJ. [Order per : P. Swaroop Reddy, J. (Common)]. All these writ petitions are filed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-II against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 313 to 324 and 438 of 1997. 2. The relevant facts are : The respondent(s) in all these writ petitions, who filed the above OAs, were working in Central Excise Department at International Airport as Inspectors of Central Excise etc. The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted raid on 20-7-1995 and seized certain foreign and Indian currency and certain other items from their counters. A panchanama was prepared about the recovery and the respondents were prosecuted before the Special Court for CBI Cases in C.C. No. 11 of 1999 for the offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the above calendar case, in support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs P-1 to P-34 and MOs 1 to 29. 3. All t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evade customs duty. Thus the allegations mentioned in the charge Memo are similar to the charges framed in the criminal case. 7. Another significant aspect in this case is that the Enquiry Officer, in all the enquiries, held that the charges are not proved, as seen from the enquiry reports, now placed before us. 8. Now the question is whether there are any grounds for allowing these writ petitions. 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents the proceedings were started on 20-7-1995 - more than a decade and half. All these days, the respondents have undergone the ordeal of facing trial, conviction and sentence which was in force from 25-1-2002 to 3-1-2006 (for four years); during which period they were under suspension for some time. They were under continuous tension for all these years. 10. The amount/property involved is also not substantial. The following are the amounts/articles seized from the respondents in the writ petitions as shown against them. 1. Smt. N. Bhagyavathi (W.P. No.740 of 2009) S. No. Currency seized Item seized 1. Indian Rs. 500 x 6 = 3,000-00 One Lomani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Indian Rs. 100 x 8 = 800 8. Indian Rs. 50 x 5 = 250 6. Sri N. Ratnakar (W.P. No. 739 of 2009) S. No. Currency seized Items seized 1. Indian Currency Rs. 100 x 2 = Rs. 200 One Small Chatelle Eau De Toilet Spray 2. US Dollars 100 x 1 = Rs. 100 3. UAE Dirham 100 x 4 = 400 7. Sri M. Venkata Ramana (W.P. No. 741 of 2009) S. No. Currency seized Items seized 1. Indian Rs. 500 x 2 = Rs. 1000 2. Oman Riyals 10 x 1 = 10 3. UAE Dirhman 10 x 5 = 50 4. UAE Dirhman 50 x 6 = 300 5. UAE Dirhman 100 x 6 = 600 8. Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana (W.P. No. 12746 of 2009) S. No. Currency seized Items seized 1. Indian Rs. 10 x 100 = Rs. 1000 2. Indian Rs. 100 x 3 = Rs. 300 3. Saudi Riyals 100 x 2 = 200 9. Sri M. Prem Kumar (W.P. No. 738 of 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No doubt, as the amount is said to have been collected on single day, it is reasonably high. However, it is not a case where the amounts are running into lakhs of rupees or misappropriation of any huge amounts. Now we are in a period where the allegations of misappropriation are running into crores of rupees and some times to thousands of crores of rupees. 10. Coming to the legal question, the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the question as to whether the accused, who were acquitted in criminal case can be proceeded against departmentally, are divergent. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao - 2008 (15) SCC 657 the Hon ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal case would not be a bar for initiation of departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. But the applicability of the above principle would depend on facts situation of each case. That was a case where a Bank officer facilitated his wife to get undue pecuniary benefit by permitting unauthorized adjustments which were done with his prior knowledge and he sanctioned and released loans to his close relatives in contravention of Head Office Circulars. Thus the contravention in the above case is very se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
