Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. He further stated that the respondents have clearly stated in their Counter-Affidavit that no case of Disproportionate Assets could be made out by CBI, yet respondents have relied upon the allegations contained in the FIR filed in the said case in which applicant has been completely exonerated from all charges. The learned counsel for applicant stated that the respondents are Item No.17 /C-1 apparently also relying upon R.C. No. 23(A)/2004-GNR which was filed against the applicant for allegedly bribing CBI Investigating Officer Sh. R.K. Das to obtain favour in the DA case. It is submitted that the said case is sub-judice and the applicant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Learned counsel further stated that whether the applicant is a victim of extortion or he has committed offence of bribery is yet to be decided by court, therefore, the respondents cannot presume him guilty in advance before the conclusion of the Trial in the said case and drawing of conclusion on the story of prosecution without putting it through the test of trial is not fair. It is contended that the respondents cannot decide their own case, especially when the Court has decided otherwise in favour of the Applicant, and that the said feeble attempt of respondents is only to prejudice the mind of this Tribunal as has been the case even while taking approval of the Competent Authority for compulsory retirement under 56(j). It is further stated that the respondents have also relied upon the initiation of penalty proceedings against the applicant vide OM dated 16.09.2011. The learned counsel also stated that the Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit admitted that on reconsideration and recommendations of CBEC, the CVC vide OM No.004/CEX/127/145201 dated 22.10.2012 dropped the Item No.17 /C-1 proposed proceedings. The advice tendered by CVC reads as follows: -

25. It is next stated that the allegation in FIR registered in DA case was that he obtained pecuniary advantage from the people who could have official connection with the applicant. A private person namely Mr. Anil Jain was dealing in export of diamonds and his dealing had connections with Customs Department, and the applicant could be posted to said department in future. It is submitted that the investigating agency may investigate this allegation/FIR for a hundred years but it will fail for the obvious reason that one cannot find any evidence for an offence yet to be committed. Arguably, the offence, if at all, could have been committed only when Applicant would have been posted to Customs in future. However, the applicant had never worked in Customs. This fact should have been known to Review Committee, as even a novice can sense that CBI asserted jurisdiction in DA case with ulterior motives. Furthermore, the bribe case was registered against the Applicant on 26.09.2004 while DA case was registered on 02.10.2004 against applicant, his wife and Mr. Anil Jain. It is stated that the sole purpose of involving Applicant's wife in false DA case was to stop the applicant against the wrongs done by CBI. He further stated that during the course of trial, the CBI Court asked CBI to file affidavit that they had not drawn any panchnama on 05.09.2004. CBI filed affidavit dated 04.10.2015 stating that no panchnama had been filed. It is contended that the said affidavit was completely false as the CBI had in fact drawn Item No.17 /C-1 panchnama on 05.09.2004 illegally without an FIR and concealed it.