TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y that, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer that identical orders were passed by other officers, as per Exhibits D- 5, D-6 and D-7 placed before the Inquiry Officer, where the same orders of the CEGAT had been followed. We find it quite surprising that such a hue and cry has been made in the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances, especially when there was no loss of revenue in view of the Special Leave Petition being dismissed as also the review application. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of petitioner. - Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2014 - Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ And Arun Palli,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. DV Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harit Sharma and Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate ORDER Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. (Oral) The petitioner has been visited with the consequences of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by cut of his pension by 30%, on account of his having performed quasi judicial functions and that too in conformity with the legal principle laid down by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Memorandum dated 16.3.1998, which is in question, was issued with Article of Charges imputing that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, inasmuch as :- (i) adjudicated the cases transgressing monetary limit fixed for Assistant Collector; and (ii) vacated the demands knowing fully well that the department had gone in appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue which was pending with the Apex Court at that time. The stand of the petitioner is that the Circular in question dated 14.5.1992, prescribing the financial limits, read as under:- Consequent to this amendment the issue of laying down monetary limits for powers of adjudication of officers of different ranks has been examined by the Board and it has been decided to supersede all existing instructions on the subject and to lay down following monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise cases, other than the cases relating to approval of classification lists and price lists:- Designation of officers Amount of duty involved 1. Collector Withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to independently function for a quasi judicial officer. Such an action could always be corrected in appeal. However, the Tribunal referred to an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Shri K.K. Dhawan, 1993(1) SLR 700, on the ground that it was a 3-Judges' Bench. The view expressed therein was that the disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a government servant concerned with regard to exercise of quasi judicial powers, if the act or omission is such as to reflect on the reputation of the government servant for his integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; there is a prima facie material manifesting recklessness or misconduct in discharge of the official duty; the officer had failed to act honestly or in good faith or had omitted to observe the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of statutory power. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Duli Chand, 2006-III LLJ 221, opining that while performing judicial or quasi judicial functions, if the authority acted negligently or omitted essential conditions prescribed for exercise of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, there was no limitation in his power, in view of the Circular itself having carved out an exception qua the cases relating to approval of Classification Lists. Insofar as the second aspect of the charges is concerned i.e. that the Department had gone in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue, the same is only to be stated to be rejected for the reason that the judicial view of CEGAT would stand in the absence of there being any interim order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had come down heavily on the concerned officer dealing with the assessment in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7717 of 1990 (Union of India and others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited), decided on 24.9.1991. A contrary approach, if had been adopted by the petitioner, would squarely fall within the mischief set out in the aforesaid judicial pronouncement upholding the criticism by the High Court of the conduct of the Assistant Collector that ignoring the views of appellate authority amounts to harassment to the assessee by failure of the officers to giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
