2014 (5) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Reduction in pension - Performance of quasi judicial functions - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Exceeding his financial powers as the matter related to approval of classification lists - Held that - We have endeavoured to analyse the Circular dated 14.5.1992 which prescribes the monetary limits for adjudication. No doubt a monetary limit has been prescribed for different officers but the Circular is qualified by the expression other than the cases relating to approval of classification lists and price lists The petitioner was performing this very function and thus the financial limit would not inhibit him from deciding the cases. This aspect stands completely clarified by both the stand taken by the respondents before us in the pleadings as well as by the cross examination of the witness of the department. Petitioner would have no option but to act in accordance with the judicial hierarchy of the appellate authority being CEGAT which had already expressed its view on the issue of this classification vide order dated 20.12.1990. Not only 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disciplinary action against a retired government servant for performing quasi-judicial functions without interim orders from the Supreme Court.
2. Interpretation of Circular dated 14.5.1992 regarding financial limits for adjudication.
3. Validity of disciplinary proceedings based on the petitioner's actions in quasi-judicial functions.

Issue 1: Disciplinary Action for Quasi-Judicial Functions
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, faced disciplinary action resulting in a 30% cut in pension due to his adjudication of a dispute involving Classification Lists and demands. The charge-sheet alleged transgression of monetary limits and vacating demands despite the Department's appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that he followed CEGAT's decision, binding in the absence of Supreme Court stay orders. The Tribunal upheld the disciplinary action, citing precedents allowing disciplinary proceedings for misconduct in quasi-judicial functions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Circular on Financial Limits
The Circular dated 14.5.1992 set monetary limits for adjudication but exempted cases related to approval of Classification Lists. The petitioner's actions fell under this exemption, as clarified by the Department's witness. Despite the Department's argument that the petitioner's conduct should be judged at the time of the order, the Circular's exception allowed the petitioner to decide cases without financial limitations.

Issue 3: Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings
The Tribunal considered the petitioner's lack of financial capacity and jurisdiction, leading to disciplinary action. However, the petitioner's adherence to the judicial hierarchy, following CEGAT's decision, was crucial. The petitioner's actions were consistent with the legal position established by CEGAT and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's emphasis on safeguarding revenue and pending Supreme Court decisions was deemed unnecessary, given the established legal framework. The Court quashed the inquiry proceedings, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of following legal precedents in quasi-judicial functions, emphasizing the binding nature of higher authority decisions. The Circular's exemption allowed the petitioner to act within his jurisdiction, despite the Department's contentions. The Court's decision favored the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to legal principles over administrative interpretations, ultimately leading to the quashing of disciplinary actions and the restoration of the petitioner's retiral benefits.