9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na Bench, Patna dated 13.03.2014, passed in O.A. No. 695/2012 filed by the applicant before it. Heard Sri Dinu Kumar for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and with their consent, we are disposing of this writ petition at this stage itself. The writ petitioner was Range Officer in the Central Excise Department. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for major penalty in respect of his role in assessing and granting wrong refunds and then not seeking its repayment and/or not recovering refunds. In the departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer noted the facts in detail and came to a finding that none of the charges could be proved or established. The Enquiry Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd imposed a penalty of withholding 30% pension for a period of 5 years for negligence in granting refund not to the buyer but to the seller/manufacturer. The Tribunal dismissed the application and hence this writ petition. Before us, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits : (i) That the acts of the petitioner were acts in quasi-judicial capacity and as such disciplinary proceedings could not be taken up as it was not a matter of discipline. A wrongful exercise of judicial discretion is not punishable as it is not misconduct in matters of discipline. (ii) The disciplinary authority erred in holding that the petitioner was negligent in not pursuing the matter of recovery in spite of audit objection. (iii) Negligence, as notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de only on 05.05.1994 was clearly after the six months statutory period prescribed. Thus, to say that petitioner ought to have taken proper steps for recovery is a far cry, for Section 11-A of the Act prohibits any action after six months. Petitioner cannot be alleged to have been negligent in that respect. Lastly, U.P.S.C. observed that the petitioner should not have allowed refund to the seller/ manufacturer. Refund if at all due was legally due to the buyer who had paid the duty to the manufacturer for depositing to the Department. The view of the U.P.S.C. was correct but we cannot take note of this because there was no such charge against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. If this was the opinion of the U.P.S.C. after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
