9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned Additional Standing Counsel, Government of India for the opposite parties. Both of them agreed that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage. 2.Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage as per rule of the Court. 3.It appears that a proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was initiated against the petitioner along with Mahendra Goel and Vijai Saxena for the alleged smuggling of mobile phones, its accessories and computer parts of foreign origin. It has been alleged that with the help an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 25,000/- in each case on or before 16th August, 2000 and to report compliance by 24th August, 2000, failing which the appeal shall be dismissed without any further notice. 4.S.C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that while disposing of the waiver application the learned Tribunal did not consider the hardship of the petitioner. He further sought to argue that the petitioner has been implicated only on the statements of Rakesh Kumar, Vipin Kumar Bansal and Mahendra Goel. But inspite of his request the Commissioner of Customs (General) respondent no. 2, did not give him opportunity to cross examine them. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never identified by the aforesaid three person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission for the reason that the allegations against the petitioner are in respect of incident which took place at Varanasi Airport during his posting there as Customs Inspector and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The aforesaid order dated 13-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 451 of 2000 is also not applicable in the facts of the present case from a perusal of the aforesaid order dated 13-7-2000. It is apparent that in the place at Amausi Airport, Lucknow and, therefore, the learned single Judge of this Court held that the cause of action, if any, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in that view of the matter. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the writ petition in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit the penalty besides existence of a prima facie case as prescribed in the proviso to Section 129E of the Act. 9.Admittedly, the petitioner is a permanent employee of the Customs Department and has rendered 12 years of continuous service and now under suspension from October, 1997, almost for about three years. It is a matter of common knowledge that a suspended Government servant during the period of suspension does not get full salary but subsistence allowance only. But this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal and, therefore, I am of the opinion that directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25000/- in each case will cause undue hardship to him. Apart from that the petitioner being still in Government service in the event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
