9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al‟), whereby the learned Tribunal has quashed the charge sheet issued to the respondent after ten years of the date of the incident, more particularly because even the allegations were not particularized. 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case there is a delay of more than 11 years in issuing the charge sheet to the respondent who has already retired on 1.4.2009 as Superintendent (Customs Central Excise) after completing 27 years of service. 3. The allegations made against the respondent pertains to the year 1997 when he was posted in Export Shed at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. As per the charge sheet issued to the respondent, the allegations made against him were as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of Shipping Bills No. 1033401, 1033402, 1033403 1033411 all dated 23.9,98 without exercising necessary checks and scrutiny of the documents in respect of the above mentioned shipping bills, thus, causing a loss of ₹ 12,06,819/- to the Govt. exchequer by way of disbursement of duty drawback to a firm M/s Romil International having its office at H-305, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi as no remittances has been received against the goods exported under the above mentioned shipping bills. Had Shri M.S. Bhatia, Superintendent, worked with devotion and diligence the loss of ₹ 12,06,819/- caused to the Govt. exchequer could have been prevented. ON this ground a Show Cause Notice under DRI F.No. 23/154/98-DZU, dated 17.6.1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner in which the respondent has been found guilty of dereliction of duty. Admittedly, there is a delay of 11 years in this case of charging the respondent for having caused misconduct by alleged dereliction of duty. 9. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioners about the delay. The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect in detail and after taking note of the list of events brought to the notice of the Tribunal as mentioned in paragraph 14 of the impugned order and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Govt. of A. P. V. Appala Swamy, 2009 (1) SCC (L S) 440 has observed that the explanation of delay tendered by the petitioners on the face of it is wrong as in the show cause notice issued in 1999, the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay as merely while functioning as Superintendent he has given Let export order in the same methodology, practice and customs which were prevalent and also followed in the department. Neither the applicant has derelicted in duty, nor by his willful act he had the intention to cause any willful loss to the Government, which is already recovered. Now, holding a disciplinary proceeding against applicant post-retirement though on voluntary grounds would not serve any purpose. At best, the alleged misconduct of applicant for his alleged negligence, which is not culpable one and shall not to be construed as a misconduct in view of the decision of the Apex Court in J. Ahmed‟s case (supra). 28. Moreover, an error of judgment is not treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) Dy. Inspector General of Police Vs. K.S. Swaminathan, (1996) 11 SCC 498; (v) State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ajit Singh, (1997) 11 SCC 368; (vi) Secretary to Government, Prohibition Excise Department Vs. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157; and (vii) Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49. 11. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal as well the judgments which have been cited before us. We find that in the facts of this case, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are of no help to their case for the simple reason that as observed by the Tribunal there is no adequate explanation for not having issued the charge sheet soon after the incident was brought to the notice of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal‟s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal. 13. Similarly, in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Apex Court has been pleased to hold:- 19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of that matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
