9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, a Regulation 9 Pass Holder (now Regulation 8 as per CHALR, 2004) tendered his resignation and requested the appellant to relieve him from the services. Vide letter dated 10-8-2004, the appellant accepted the resignation of Shri Girish P. Manjeshwar w.e.f. 14-8-2004 and relieved him from the services of the Company as per the terms and conditions of their appointment letter issued to him. Vide letter dated 18-11-2004, the appellant intimated the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Establishment and Administration Department, New Custom House, Mumbai, that Shri Girish P. Manjeshwar, holding Custom Pass under Regulation 9 has left the services of the Company due to the resignation tendered by him. 3. Shri Girish P. Manjeshwar was the only Regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, vide his letter dated 26-3-2007 communicated that their request to make their licence operative was not considered by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. 5. Thereafter, since the communication from the Asstt. Commissioner was not an appealable order, the appellant, vide their letter dated 29-3-2007, requested the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai to pass an appealable order after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to them. 6. After granting an opportunity of personal hearing, the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai rejected the submissions of the appellant and passed the impugned order dated 21-5-2007 confirming therein that the CHA Licence made inoperative was absolutely n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, it is seen that Mr. Girish P. Manjeshwar, a Regulation 9 employee, tendered his resignation on 18-3-2004, who was relieved from the services by the appellant on 14-8-2004, which itself establishes that the said employee did not retire from the services but was relieved due to his resignation. Proviso to Rule 15(2) of the CHALR, 2004 and the time limit of two years prescribed therein is applicable only in the case of demise or retirement of the person and not in the case of resignation, which is the case here. 10. Further, the proviso to Regulation 15(2) is not at all applicable in the instant case since the same is applicable only when there is a G Card , holder of the Company. In the appellant s case, after the resignation of Mr. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
