Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Manish Mohan vs Union Of India on 11 June, 2012
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI Dated this Monday the 11th day of June, 2012 CORAM:- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER , MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI R.BANDYOPADHYAY , MEMBER (A) O.A.277 OF 2012 Manish Mohan, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I, Central Excise Commissionerate, Navprabhat Chambers, 4th Floor, Ranade Road, Dadar Mumbai 400 028. R/o 10/275, Revenue Apartments, New MIG Colony, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051. (By Advocate Shri R.R.Shetty) -Applicant Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. ..Respondents O R D E R (Oral) Per : Justice A.K.Basheer,, Member (J)
The applicant who is stated to be working as Additional Commissioner of Central Excise at Thane-I Commissionerate in Mumbai has filed this Original Application with a solitary prayer to quash and set aside the Memorandum of Charge issued to him.
2. The graveman of the charge levelled against the applicant in the Memorandum dated December 27, 2012 appears to be that during 1999-2002, while he was 2 working as Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise in Hyderabad-I & VIII Divisions, he was negligent in his duties in granting Customs Private Bonded Warehouse ('CPBW' for short) Licences to certain 100% Export Oriented Units ('EOU' for short). To be a little more specific, the charge is that the applicant had issued these licences without verifying the solvency of the surety independently. Still further, the applicant while granting the licences completely relied upon the verification reports of the Superintendent without making any attempt to critically examine the veracity of the verification reports. According to the Department, because of the above lapse on the part of the applicant, these Units evaded Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.39,68,13,201/-.
3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, we do not deem it necessary to refer to or deal with the charges at length. However, it may be necessary to refer to Article-II of the charge as well briefly. According to the Department, the applicant had failed to supervise the work of his subordinate officers and to monitor the Accounts and Records of these Units as prescribed under the relevant circulars. The Memorandum of charge further alleges that the applicant had failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and had thus failed to take all possible steps to ensure the 3 integrity and devotion to duty of all the government servants under his control and authority, thereby attracting violation of various provisions under the relevant Service Rules. In short, the case of the Department appears to be that because of these omissions and commissions, the Revenue has lost Duty to the tune of Rs.222,33,63,806/-.
4. We have heard Shri R.R.Shetty, learned counsel for the applicant at length and perused the materials available on record.
5. Learned counsel has vehemently contended before us that the so called misconduct was allegedly committed by the applicant way back during the period 1999-2002. No apparent or valid reason is discernible from the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct as to why the Department took such a long time to issue the Memorandum of Charge against him. Learned counsel submits that the records made available to the applicant will show that investigation had commenced way back in the year 2002 itself. He contends that the inordinate delay will cut at the the root of the charge now being levelled against the applicant for reasons more than one. In this context, learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Mansa Ram Vs. S.P.Pathak, 1984 (1) SCC 125.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the charge sheet by itself is totally vague. It is 4 pointed out by the learned counsel that the alleged omissions and commissions on the part of the applicant are with reference to two notifications/instructions issued by the Department in 2002 and 2006. But curiously, the charge refers to certain omission and commission which allegedly occurred prior to these two notifications. Yet again, we refrain from dealing with the above contention at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass.
7. In our view the applicant has to necessarily urge all his contentions before the competent authority. We are informed that the applicant has already submitted a representation in response to the memorandum of charges on February 6, 2012. We are further informed at the Bar that the above and all other available contentions have been raised by the applicant in the said representation. Therefore, we do not find any reason as to why the authority concerned shall not consider all these contentions on their merit and in accordance with law. In any view of the matter we do not find any justification to entertain this Original Application before this Tribunal at this stage.
8. Therefore, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on the representation that is stated to have been submitted by the applicant in response to the 5 Memorandum of Charges strictly on its merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be ensured by respondent no.1 that the applicant is afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desires.
(R.Bandyopadhyay) (Justice A.K.Basheer) Member (A) Member (J) mf