Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K R Chandrasekharan Pillai vs Revenue on 17 February, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00387/2022
Tuesday, this the 17th day of February, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member (A)
K.R. Chandrasekharan Pillai,
Superintendent of Customs (Prev-retired),
Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs Office,
Cochin - 682 009. Aged 72 years, S/o. K. Raghavan Pillai,
Residing at Sarovaram, Green Wood Gardens,
Kunjan Bhavan Road, Vytilla, Cochin - 19. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil and
Mr. Rajan G. George)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Chief Vigilance Officer,
Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Room No. 280, Samrat Hotel, Chanakyapuri,
Kautila Marg, New Delhi - 110 021.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30'
2
4. The Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhavan, Block-A,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
5. Union Public Service Commissioner,
represented by its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 069.
6. The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
7. Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, Willington Island,
Cochin - 682 009.
8. Under Secretary (Ad v Section),
Central Boad of Indirect Taxes,
and Customs, 2nd Floor, C Wing,
Hudco, Vishala Building,
Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 066. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates: Mr. Sreejith N., ACGSC (R1-4, 6-8) and
Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil (R5)]
This Original Application having been heard on 11.09.2025, the
Tribunal on 17.02.2026 delivered the following:
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30'
3
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant who is a retired Superintendent of Customs, is challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and Annexure A12 order imposing penalty on him for alleged misconduct.
2. Applicant was the Air Customs Superintendent under respondents Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 and posted in the Cochin International Airport during 2006. The CBI had got secret information about alleged receipt of bribes by several customs officials posted at the Airport from the passengers who were coming from abroad. After verifying the CCTV records of 10 days ending on 17.10.2006, the CBI conducted a search at the Customs Baggage Hall of Cochin International Airport on 18.10.2006. On the basis of incriminating materials collected therein, RC 23(A) of 2006 was registered against identifiable customs officials. The applicant was issued with Annexure A1 charge memo dated 14.7.2009, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 based on a statement recorded by CBI from a passenger Sri Assissi A. who had disembarked on 18.10.2006 at Cochin Airport. The allegation against the applicant as disclosed in Annexure A1 was that the applicant had Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 4 demanded 50 dirhams from the said passenger and since he had only 25 dirhams he was instructed to go near the scanner and place the currency in the passport. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly took the currency and returned the passport. It was alleged that the passenger had identified the applicant from the video clippings. Alleging that he had thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the above memo of charges was issued to him.
3. The applicant denied the articles of charges and submitted Annexure A2 reply statement dated 7.8.2009. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired on 31.03.2010. Thereafter, disciplinary inquiry was commenced after a lapse of five years by appointing an inquiry officer on 9.11.2015 by Annexure A3 order. The inquiry commenced on 28.12.2015 and concluded on 15.4.2016. Three witnesses were examined and the applicant had offered himself in the inquiry. The applicant submitted written submissions for hearing on the basis of the evidence gathered in the inquiry, Thereafter, the inquiry authority filed a report holding that the allegations against the applicant was not established. Annexure A5 is the inquiry report along with the depositions of the witnesses. Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 5
4. A copy of the report was served on the applicant and he was called upon to submit his written representation. He submitted his written representation. It seems that the 7th respondent Commissioner of Customs, tentatively accepted the inquiry report and recommended for closure of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant. However, the CVC disagreed with the recommendation of the 7th respondent Commissioner of Customs and advised imposition of a major penalty on the charged officer relying on Section 161 statement of the one of the witnesses recorded by the CBI. Annexure A6 is the report given by the CVC. According to the applicant, without assigning any reason to his differ from his earlier tentative decision to exonerate the applicant, and close the proceedings, the 7th respondent concurred with the advice given by the CVC.
5. The applicant submitted Annexure A7 representation dated 18.12.2017 on the observation of the CVC and the recommendation for imposing major penalty. According to the applicant, without considering the above, the 7th respondent concurred with the view of the CVC contrary to its own finding earlier. 7th respondent forwarded Annexure A8 advice of CVC to impose suitable major penalty against the applicant Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 6 which was in disagreement with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority. Applicant filed his submission objecting to the advice of the CVC relying on the purported statement of Assissi. Hence, he submitted Annexure A9 representation against Annexure A8 advice of the CVC. Thereafter, he received, Annexure A10 the memorandum dated 8.7.2021, of the 8th respondent proposing to follow the advice of the UPSC to impose penalty of withholding of 50% of monthly pension otherwise admissible to him permanently along with 50% of the gratuity due to the applicant.
6. Applicant made representation against accepting the advice by submitting Annexure A11. The competent authority, on the advice of the UPSC imposed a penalty of withholding 50% of his monthly pension otherwise admissible to him permanently along with 50% of the gratuity as per Annexure A12 order dated 18.4.2022.
7. Aggrieved by the above order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceedings as well as Annexure A12 on various grounds. The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as under:
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30'
7
"a) set aside inquiry proceedings initiated by 7th respondent being
illegal and arbitrary and quash the proceedings thereon including Annexure A12 order dated 18.4.2022;
b) call for the records leading to Annexures A6, A8, A10 and A12 and set aside the same;
c) declare that the applicant is entitled to disbursement of entire gratuity, leave encashment and other pensionary benefits till date and also for disbursement of entire monthly pension regularly;
d) direct the respondents 1, 2 & 7 to disburse entire gratuity and arrears of monthly pension till date forthwith and to continue to pay monthly pension regularly."
8. Respondents 1 to 4 filed reply statement dated 15th September, 2022 in answer to the interim relief along with Annexures R1 and R2. A detailed reply statement dated 17.10.2022 in answer to the Original Application was also filed along with Annexures R3 and R4 documents. A separate reply statement was filed by the 5th respondent UPSC. An additional reply statement was filed by respondents Nos. 3, 7 and 8 to the rejoinder filed by the applicant. Further an additional reply statement was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 in reply to the additional rejoinder.
9. In the reply statement the respondents 1 to 3, 7 and 8 vehemently opposed the various contentions set up by the applicant. It was contended that based on the information received by the CBI that the Customs Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 8 officials based at the Cochin International Airport were collecting bribe from passengers, after verifying the CCTV recordings for ten days up to 17.8.2006, conducted a search in CIAL on 18.10.2006 and registered case against the identified customs officials. The CBI had also collected the video recordings of the movements of the Customs officials for ten days prior to the date of search. The CBI recorded statement of some passengers encountered by the Customs officials on the above check dates. A crime was registered against 27 officers belonging to different categories and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all of them. As of now cases of 21 officers including the applicant, are pending before the Special CBI Court, Ernakulam. It was stated that on the basis of the investigation conducted by the CBI, one of the passengers named Assissi who had arrived in Cochin International Airport on 17.10.2006 had given a statement to the CBI, that when he was about to pass the green channel, he was directed by the Customs official to go to counter No. 3, where some Customs officials including the applicant attended him. The applicant wrote something on his disembarkation card and demanded 50 dirhams from him. But since the passenger had only 25 dirhams, the applicant demanded the same. He was directed to go near the scanner and Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 9 to place the currency in his passport. Accordingly, he placed the currency in his passport. Applicant approached him and took the currency and returned the passport to him. He identified the applicant and other Customs officials from the video clippings.
10. Heard both sides and examined the records.
11. Annexure A1(2) is the statement of articles of charge raised against the applicant which reads as follows:
"Article 1- The Central Bureau of Investigation, Cochin, conducted searches in Cochin International Airport on 18.10.2006 and registered cases against the identifiable Customs Officials. One of the passengers who had arrived in Cochin International Airport, Shri Assissi has stated that Shri KRC Pillai, Superintendent of Customs demanded 50 Dirhams from him and since he had only 25 Dhms, he was instructed to go near the scanner and put the currency in the Passport. Shri Pillai then took the currency and returned the Passport to him. The passenger identified the officer Shri Pillai from the video clippings.
By the above acts, Shri K R C Pillai, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) violated Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in as much he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming a Government servant."
Along with it Annexure II, the statement of imputation was also enclosed. The list of documents relied on by the respondents and the list of witnesses who were proposed to be examined were also enclosed. The Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 10 applicant had submitted Annexure A2 reply to the memo of charges denying the allegations in the memo of charges. It was thereafter, the inquiry was conducted.
12. On the advice of the CVC, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge sheet was issued to the delinquent based on the 1st stage advice. Inquiry officer was appointed accordingly. After submission of the report by the inquiry officer if the opinion of the disciplinary authority was in tune with the 1st stage advice of the CVC, such cases can be dealt at the level of the Central Vigilance Officer and the disciplinary authority of the concerned organization. However, if the 1st stage advice given by the CVC and the opinion of the disciplinary authority differed, a 2nd stage advice is to be sought from the Commission by the disciplinary authority. This was in accordance with Annexure R3 Vigilance Manual.
13. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Annexure R4 letter. In the inquiry, the material evidence relied on by the respondents was the disclosure made by Assissi to the officers who had encountered him. His statement that the money was demanded by the officer who had endorsed on his disembarkation card was the crucial Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 11 material. However, in the inquiry, the inquiry officer by his report dated 15.4.2016 held that the article of charges were not proved. The report was forwarded to the applicant and his comments were sought. Inquiry report along with the explanation submitted by the applicant, were forwarded to the CVC for its opinion. The CVC tendered its 2nd stage advice by communication dated 1.11.2017 mentioned in Annexure A6 disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer for the reasons mentioned therein. Thereafter, the records were sent to the UPSC for Commission's advice. UPSC by Annexure A10 tendered their advice. The UPSC recommended for imposing penalty of withholding of 50% of monthly pension and withholding of 50% of gratuity. Disciplinary authority accordingly, imposed the punishment. It was contended that the various contentions set up in the Original Application were not sustainable and liable to be rejected.
14. Though several contentions were taken up by the respondents there is no dispute that the applicant was given all the opportunity by the inquiry officer to cross examine the witnesses and to offer himself as a witness. The list of witness and list of documents were supplied to the applicant. He has no case that principles of natural justice were violated.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 12 He was also permitted to be assisted by a defence assistant.
15. One of the grounds alleged by the applicant was that there was considerable delay in completing the inquiry proceedings. It is pertinent to note that memo of charges dated 14.7.2009 was served on him. He retired thereafter on 31.3.2010. Apart from the delay the learned counsel for the applicant contended that after the retirement of the applicant, the respondents were not justified in continuing the proceedings. This is incorrect, in the light of Rule 8(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Since the applicant retired before the proceedings were concluded, therefore, proceedings were deemed to be continued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and final decision was taken by the Union of India in consultation with the UPSC. Hence, the contention that the respondents could not have proceeded with the inquiry after his retirement is not sustainable.
16. The other limb of his contention was that there was considerable delay in completing the proceedings. It seems that though memo of charges were served in 2009, since the criminal proceedings were pending, no further proceedings were taken. Thereafter, respondents were Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 13 directed to complete the proceedings of inquiry notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case. Accordingly, the inquiry officer was appointed on 9.11.2015 and he submitted the report on 15.4.2016. It is pertinent to note that Rule 14(24)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the inquiry officer should conclude the inquiry and submit his report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of his appointment as inquiry officer. As mentioned earlier, the inquiry officer was appointed on 9.11.2015 and he submitted his report before six months prescribed on 15.4.2016, well within the stipulated period of six months.
17. To contend that even the delay as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be sustained, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision reported in Government of A.P. & Ors. v. Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 49]. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that no hard and fast Rule can be laid down regarding the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Each case must be determined on its own facts. Even to decide whether there was delay, two crucial questions arise; i) whether by reason of the delay the employer condoned the lapse on the part of the employee and ii) whether Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 14 the delay had caused prejudice to the employee. It was held that prejudice, if any, has to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer.
18. In Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [(2012) 11 SCC 565] it was held that the proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground that proceedings has been initiated at a belated stage or could not be completed in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent. Gravity of the alleged offence is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.
19. It is pertinent to note that though there was delay in commencing the inquiry proceedings, after the appointment of the inquiry officer it was completed within the statutory period. The delay in initiating the proceeding has been well explained by stating that they could not initiate the proceedings due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Absolutely no material is placed on record to show that thereby any prejudice has been caused to the applicant. Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the prayer that inquiry proceeding was vitiated on ground of delay and for continuing after the retirement of the applicant.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 15
20. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the basic premise on which the entire allegation against the applicant was set up was not legally sustainable. On merits, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the materials on record to advance his contention. It is settled law that the Courts will not act as an appellate authority and reassess the evidence led in the departmental inquiry nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the basis of materials on record. The respondents relied on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC 584], GM (Operations), SBI v. R. Periyasamy [(2015) 3 SCC 101] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashi Kant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416] which consistently held as above. In all the above cases, the limited jurisdiction exercised by the courts in interfering with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry is to ascertain whether the findings are based on evidence. The question of adequacy of evidence or reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental inquiries. Therefore, Courts will not interfere with the findings of facts recorded in departmental inquiries except where such findings were based on no evidence or where they were clearly perverse.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 16
21. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the entire case of the respondents were built up on the basis of the evidence of Assissi and his Section 161 Cr.PC statement given to the CBI. It was contended that Section 161 Cr.PC statement of any person was of no consequence and it cannot be relied on for any purpose. It was contended that the said Assissi had only studied up to VIIth standard and he could not read and write English and the statement stated to have been recorded by the CBI could not be relied upon. The said witness at the time of giving evidence before the inquiry officer did not subscribe to the statements given to the CBI. The UPSC also went wrong in relying on the unsubstantiated Section 161 Cr.PC statement of the said witness.
22. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was questioned by the CBI on 28.2.2007 and his statement is on record. It shows that the applicant was shown the embarkation card in the name of the said Assissi. After perusing the slip, the applicant admitted that the writings appearing on the reverse side of the slip were written by him. He had written as "T5, used DVD, used tape other miscellaneous within FA passed free". It was also admitted that he had signed the slip with date 12.10 with designation "APS". He identified it also. It seems that this admission was one of the Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 17 basic premise on which the evidence of Assissi was appreciated by all the authorities concerned, including the CVC and UPSC.
23. Though the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the said Assissi did not know to read and write English and that he had retracted from the evidence given in the inquiry and that the respondents completely relied on Section 161 CrPC statement of Assissi, those contentions are factually incorrect. At the time of inquiry, the Section 161 CrPC statement of Assissi was read over to him by the presenting officer and he was asked whether he had given that statement to CBI. In fact, he did not deny it, nor did he state that he had not given such statement. He stated that on 17.10.2006 he returned from Dubai. Thereafter, Police came to his house and he had gone to CBI office. This reply has to be read along with question No. 10 put by the presenting officer as to what he had stated before the CBI officer. He replied that on 17.10.2006 he arrived at the airport and while he was leaving, after taking his baggage, one person asked him to give Dirhams which he had. He was asked to keep the Dirhams in the passport. He had also admitted to the CBI that he had given 20 to 25 dirhams. These facts clearly show that he admitted the fact of giving such a statement to the CBI. He also Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 18 admitted that the incriminating part of his stqatment ws revealed to the CBI. It is also pertinent to note that he did not completely retract from his earlier statement, but only stated in the inquiry that somebody had demanded the money and he had given 20 to 25 Dirhams. He did not recollect the person to whom it was given and whether it was a person in uniform and whether it was handed over near the scanning machine. To the specific question as to whether he had given the dirhams after placing it in the passport, he did not deny but his reply was that he does not recollect. It is true that he did not identify the applicant who was present in the inquiry. Cumulatively it is clear that the crux of the allegations of CBI was admitted by the witness with a minor change. Hence, substantial part of having given 20-25 dirhams at the time of disembarkation is not disputed. In the statement given to the CBI the witness had specifically admitted that the money was given to the person who had endorsed on the reverse of the disembarkation card. Clearly this admitted part of the statement given to the inquiry officer was relied on by the CVC as well as by the UPSC. It is also clear that he had not completely retracted from the Section 161 CrPC statements, and he did not disown the Section 161 Cr.PC statement given to CBI.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 19
24. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the decision reported in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Srinath Gupta [(1996) 6 SCC 486] wherein at paragraph 13 it was held as follows:
"13. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in the criminal trial, but the said statements can be produced in a disciplinary inquiry like the present. The person who made the statement has been examined before the inquiry officer. It was open to the witness to have stated orally the entire contents of what was recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Instead of following this time consuming procedure, the said statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to the witness who admitted the contents thereof. In this way the earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. became a part of the examination-in-chief of the witness before the Inquiry Officer. It is not in dispute that the said statements had been given to the respondent in advance and full opportunity was granted to the respondent to cross-examine the said witnesses. This being the case, it is difficult to appreciate as to how the High Court could have come to the conclusion that the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated."
25. To supplement the above, the Supreme Court relied on a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur [(1963) 2 SCR 943]. In another decision in Ajeet Kumar Naag v. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Haldia [(2005) 7 SCC 764] also the same view was taken. Having regard to this the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that Section 161 Cr.PC statements as such is not admissible in evidence cannot be accepted in the Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 20 present case.
26. CVC in its Annexure A6 report had precisely given the reasoning on the basis of the evidence tendered by Assissi coupled with the admitted signature and entries on the disembarkation slip.
27. In the above circumstance, it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the competent authority was not based on any material. They have evaluated at different levels and the disciplinary authority though initially did not agree with the inquiry officer, as evidence not established the guilt of the applicant, agreed with the CVC finding as well as the UPSC and thereafter penalty was imposed on him.
28. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has no a case that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his case. He has no case that any principles of natural justice were violated. He was given an opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witness and was furnished with the documents proposed to be relied on in the inquiry and the list of witnesses proposed to be examined.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 21
29. Having considered the entire facts, we find no reason to disagree with the conclusions arrived at in Annexure A12 and the penalty imposed on the applicant. Accordingly, the Original Application fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
(SISIR KUMAR RATHO) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30'
22
Original Application No. 180/00387/2022
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of statement of imputations and articles of
charges dated 14.7.2009 along with annexure issued to the applicant.
Annexure A2 - True copy of reply statement submitted by the applicant on 7.8.2009.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the order No. Disc/01/2009 Vig Cust Pt.I dated 9.11.2015 issued by the 7th respondent.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the written submission of the presenting officer.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the inquiry report along with proceedings of inquiry including depositions of the witnesses. Annexure A6 - True copy of F. No. Disc/01/09 Vig&Cf.Cus.Pt.1 dated 4.12.2017.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the representation dated 18.12.2017 submitted by the applicant to the 7th respondent.
Annexure A8 - True copy of F.No. Disc/01/09 Vig.Cus.PT.1 dated 11.4.2018 enclosing CVC advice.
Annexure A9 - True copy of representation submitted by the applicant against Annexure A8 advice of CVC.
Annexure A10 - True copy of the memorandum C14012/26/2018- Ad.V/4939 dated 8.7.2021.
Annexure A11 - True copy of representation dated 29.7.2021 submitted by the applicant to the disciplinary authority against accepting the advice of UPSC.
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30' 23 Annexure A12 - True copy of order F.No. 14012/26/2018-Ad.V/3370 dated 18.4.2022.
Annexure A13 - True copy of attendance sheet for the period from 2.10.2006 to 17.10.2006.
Annexure A14 - True copy of the judgment dated 9.4.2024 in CC No. 47/2014 of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1 - Letter No. Disc/01/02009 VigCus(Pt.1) dated 27.4.2016.
Annexure R2 - Letter F. No. Vig/03/2006 Cus(Pt.II) dated 22.8.2016. Annexure R3 - Relevant extracts of the Vigilance Manual, 2017. Annexure R4 - True copy of the letter OM No. 008/cex/030-9453 dated 28.4.2008.
Annexure R5(a) -True copy of the letter F. No. 3/257/2020-S.I dated 2.7.2021.
Annexure R5(b)- True copy of the OM F.No. 11012/6/2007-Esst(A-III) dated 21.7.2016.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.02.17 15:11:35+05'30'