9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1396 - HC - CustomsPunishment of reduction of pay by 3 stages in the time scale - HELD THAT - This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 would not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the respondents; however, would be more concerned with the decision making process. In the present case, the principles of natural justice have been adhered to.No grievance has been made in respect of the same. The defence has been appreciated and re-appreciated by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal - there are no perversity in the appreciation of the defence in that regard. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the charges I and IV are not proved and they are required to be dropped. However, from operative part of the order, it appears that the Appellate Authoritydropped charges in Article I while modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority and imposing the penalty. In fact, the Appellate Authority was required to consider dropping of charges in Articles I and IV both. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh with regard to the quantum of punishment - Appellate Authority shall consider that the charges framed in Articles I and IV have been dropped against the petitioner as not proved and only charges in Articles II and III are to be considered for punishment and thereafter impose punishment accordingly - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Petitioner challenging Tribunal's order dismissing original application; Disciplinary proceedings against petitioner; Charges framed against petitioner; Imposition of penalty; Judicial review scope; Appellate Authority's decision; Dropping of charges in Articles I and IV; Quashing of Tribunal's order; Remitting matter back to Appellate Authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Petitioner Challenging Tribunal's Order: The petitioner approached the High Court against the Tribunal's order dismissing the original application. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on multiple charges. 2. Charges Framed Against Petitioner: The charges against the petitioner included failure to maintain necessary registers for fraudulent exports, failure to verify FOB values for DEPB entitlement, failure to draw necessary samples in the presence of exporters' representatives, and allowing clearance of export cargo without following prescribed procedures. 3. Imposition of Penalty: The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by 3 stages for a period of 2 years. The Appellate Authority later modified the penalty duration to 1 year after dropping charges I and IV. 4. Judicial Review Scope: The High Court emphasized that judicial review in such cases is limited. The Court's role is not to act as an appellate authority but to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice in the decision-making process. 5. Appellate Authority's Decision: The High Court observed discrepancies in the Appellate Authority's order regarding the dropping of charges in Articles I and IV. The Appellate Authority was supposed to consider dropping charges in both articles but only addressed Article I in its decision. 6. Quashing of Tribunal's Order: In light of the above discrepancies, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment. 7. Remitting Matter Back to Appellate Authority: The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal, focusing on the charges in Articles II and III for punishment, as charges in Articles I and IV were dropped. The Appellate Authority was instructed to complete this process within 3 months. 8. Conclusion: The High Court disposed of the writ petition, ordering the parties to act on the authenticated copy of the judgment. No costs were awarded in this matter. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues, the disciplinary charges against the petitioner, the penalty imposed, the judicial review scope, discrepancies in the Appellate Authority's decision, and the High Court's directive to remit the matter back for a fresh decision.
|
