it2025_00899 — Instead of addressing their own failure to discharge their supervisory duties, the Department issued a charge-memo to the Applicant and imposed an illegal punishment resulting in an unjust reduction in pay, that too after excessive delay in initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Punishment order and Appellate order quashed and set aside. Applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits

IT Rules

Instead of addressing their own failure to discharge their supervisory duties, the Department issued a charge-memo to the Applicant and imposed an illegal punishment resulting in an unjust reduction in pay, that too after excessive delay in initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Punishment order and Appellate order quashed and set aside. Applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits — The Applicant, aggrieved by delay and unjust departmental proceedings initiated against them while their superiors were prosecuted for the same alleged loss, approaches the Hon'ble Tribunal contestin... — Facts:The Applicant, while serving as Superintendent of Central Excise at the Customs Commissionerate in Trichy, was issued a Charge-memo, on 29-7-2010 for alleged misconduct committed during 2002 - 2003 while serving as an Inspector at the Coimbatore Central Excise Commissionerate. The charges were framed nearly eight years after the alleged events. The Applicant requested for the relied-upon documents on 2-8-2010, but they were provided only on 17-8-2010. Before the Applicant could respond, inquiry proceedings were initiated on 6-9-2010. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report in 2013, holding that the charges were not substantiated. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and issued a 'disagreement note' in June, 2013. After considering the Applicant's representation, dated 10-6-2013, the Disciplinary Authority passed the Order, dated 27-8-2013 imposing the penalty of four-stage reduction in pay ₹ 20,160 (Basic Pay + Grade Pay of ₹ 4,800) to ₹ 17,360 (Basic Pay + Grade Pay of ₹ 4,800) for six months, with the condition that no increments would be earned during this period. As the original order created ambiguity regarding the impact on future increments, a corrigendum was issued on 28-8-2013 clarifying that the reduction of pay would not affect future increments once the punishment period expired and the Applicant would not earn increments during the period of the reduction. The Applicant's appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 7-12-2015. Aggrieved by the delay and the outcome, the Applicant has approached the Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate relief. The Counsel for the Applicant contended that the departmental proceedings initiated against the Applicant were unjust and contradictory to facts. While the CBI prosecuted the Applicant's superiors for the alleged loss, no FIR was filed against the Applicant. The Applicant further contended that before the Criminal Court, they took the stand that the Applicant's superior officers were responsible for the loss. However, in stark contrast, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Applicant, holding him solely responsible for the loss. The Applicant contended that the Department cannot take a contradictory stance in departmental proceedings from what was asserted in the Criminal Court and therefore the departmental action is barred by the principle that one cannot "aprobate and reprobate." The Applicant further contends that the fact that the Disciplinary Authority issued the same charges against the Applicant's superior officer in departmental proceedings suggests a lack of proper application of mind and that the Applicant has been charged for the misconduct of his superior officer. Despite evidence against senior officers who approved the export and sanctioned the duty drawback, no action was taken against them and they were allowed to retire unpunished, but the Applicant was selectively targeted. Moreover, the charge-memo was issued after an inordinate delay of eight years, preventing the Applicant from mounting an effective defence. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the charge-memo issued to the Applicant was the result of a detailed preliminary inquiry conducted by the CIU and later investigated comprehensively by the CBI. The Disciplinary Authority, after reviewing the evidence and the CBI report, issued the charge-memo to the Applicant and that there was no mala fide intent in this process. The CBI recommended only departmental action against the Applicant and not prosecution, based upon the nature of his involvement. It was further emphasized that the role of a Customs Examiner, held by the Applicant, carries a serious responsibility in physically verifying export goods and declared values. A superficial check undermines this duty and due diligence was expected, especially when duty drawbacks or customs revenue are at stake. The Applicant's failure allegedly led to financial loss to the Exchequer. However, when the Inquiry Officer held the charges as 'not proved', the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's conclusion on one of the charges viz. Charge No. 2 and issued a disagreement note under Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and gave the Applicant a chance to respond. After considering all materials, the Disciplinary Authority concluded the Applicant failed to follow mandatory verification procedures under the Appraising Manual and relevant public notices. Finally, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the standard of proof in disciplinary cases is "preponderance of probability" and not "beyond reasonable doubt." Thus, the evidence was deemed sufficient to uphold the charges and the Respondents sought dismissal of the OA.

IT Rules

Instead of addressing their own failure to discharge their supervisory duties, the Department issued a charge-memo to the Applicant and imposed an illegal punishment resulting in an unjust reduction in pay, that too after excessive delay in initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Punishment order and Appellate order quashed and set aside. Applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits — The Applicant, aggrieved by delay and unjust departmental proceedings initiated against them while their superiors were prosecuted for the same alleged loss, approaches the Hon'ble Tribunal contestin... — Facts:The Applicant, while serving as Superintendent of Central Excise at the Customs Commissionerate in Trichy, was issued a Charge-memo, on 29-7-2010 for alleged misconduct committed during 2002 - 2003 while serving as an Inspector at the Coimbatore Central Excise Commissionerate. The charges were framed nearly eight years after the alleged events. The Applicant requested for the relied-upon documents on 2-8-2010, but they were provided only on 17-8-2010. Before the Applicant could respond, inquiry proceedings were initiated on 6-9-2010. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report in 2013, holding that the charges were not substantiated. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and issued a 'disagreement note' in June, 2013. After considering the Applicant's representation, dated 10-6-2013, the Disciplinary Authority passed the Order, dated 27-8-2013 imposing the penalty of four-stage reduction in pay ₹ 20,160 (Basic Pay + Grade Pay of ₹ 4,800) to ₹ 17,360 (Basic Pay + Grade Pay of ₹ 4,800) for six months, with the condition that no increments would be earned during this period. As the original order created ambiguity regarding the impact on future increments, a corrigendum was issued on 28-8-2013 clarifying that the reduction of pay would not affect future increments once the punishment period expired and the Applicant would not earn increments during the period of the reduction. The Applicant's appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 7-12-2015. Aggrieved by the delay and the outcome, the Applicant has approached the Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate relief. The Counsel for the Applicant contended that the departmental proceedings initiated against the Applicant were unjust and contradictory to facts. While the CBI prosecuted the Applicant's superiors for the alleged loss, no FIR was filed against the Applicant. The Applicant further contended that before the Criminal Court, they took the stand that the Applicant's superior officers were responsible for the loss. However, in stark contrast, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Applicant, holding him solely responsible for the loss. The Applicant contended that the Department cannot take a contradictory stance in departmental proceedings from what was asserted in the Criminal Court and therefore the departmental action is barred by the principle that one cannot "aprobate and reprobate." The Applicant further contends that the fact that the Disciplinary Authority issued the same charges against the Applicant's superior officer in departmental proceedings suggests a lack of proper application of mind and that the Applicant has been charged for the misconduct of his superior officer. Despite evidence against senior officers who approved the export and sanctioned the duty drawback, no action was taken against them and they were allowed to retire unpunished, but the Applicant was selectively targeted. Moreover, the charge-memo was issued after an inordinate delay of eight years, preventing the Applicant from mounting an effective defence. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the charge-memo issued to the Applicant was the result of a detailed preliminary inquiry conducted by the CIU and later investigated comprehensively by the CBI. The Disciplinary Authority, after reviewing the evidence and the CBI report, issued the charge-memo to the Applicant and that there was no mala fide intent in this process. The CBI recommended only departmental action against the Applicant and not prosecution, based upon the nature of his involvement. It was further emphasized that the role of a Customs Examiner, held by the Applicant, carries a serious responsibility in physically verifying export goods and declared values. A superficial check undermines this duty and due diligence was expected, especially when duty drawbacks or customs revenue are at stake. The Applicant's failure allegedly led to financial loss to the Exchequer. However, when the Inquiry Officer held the charges as 'not proved', the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's conclusion on one of the charges viz. Charge No. 2 and issued a disagreement note under Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and gave the Applicant a chance to respond. After considering all materials, the Disciplinary Authority concluded the Applicant failed to follow mandatory verification procedures under the Appraising Manual and relevant public notices. Finally, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the standard of proof in disciplinary cases is "preponderance of probability" and not "beyond reasonable doubt." Thus, the evidence was deemed sufficient to uphold the charges and the Respondents sought dismissal of the OA.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text