TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment has not raised the plea that no refund at all was due and the duty was rightly deposited. It is not the case of Department that refunds were ordered when refund were not due and that too with ulterior motive. That being so, for orders passed in quasi-judicial functions by statutory authorities, disciplinary proceeding for misconduct cannot be initiated, much less officer penalized. The petitioner is again correct in holding that he was not negligent in not pursuing the matter of recovery in spite of audit objection. As the assessments were in between 19.05.1993 to 22.09.1993 and the last date within which demands for recovery of excess refund could be made, in terms of Section 11-A of the Act being 18.11.1992 to 21.03.1994, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar (ASG) JUDGMENT ( Per: Honourable Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh ) This writ petition has been filed, being aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner protested. He sought that the report of the Enquiry Officer exonerating him be accepted in full and no action could be taken at all but the Disciplinary Authority rejected his explanation and 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 matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between 19.05.1993 to 22.09.1993. The last date within which demands for recovery of excess refund could be made, in terms of Section 11-A of the Act being 18.11.1992 to 21.03.1994, the audit objection having been made 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 De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
