The Disciplinary Authority must record its own findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior before imposing a minor penalty, and it is not bound to follow the advice of the Union Public Service Commission in such proceedings. A person cannot be punished for charges not mentioned in the charge sheet.

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. THE petitioner herein is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th February, 2009 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in the application being O.A. 104 of 2008 and has assailed the same in the instant writ petition.

2. FROM the records we find that at the material time, the petitioner herein was posted as Additional Collector of Customs, Export Investigation Branch, Calcutta. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the instructions of the Principal Collector mentioned in the note dated 16th April, 1994, said petitioner being the Additional Collector of Customs disposed of about 80 pending files including 7 cases of M/s. Annapurna Yarn Fabrics. According to the petitioner, department had accepted all the assessments so made in respect of the aforesaid cases.

Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner submitted that all the aforesaid assessments made by the petitioner in connection with about 80 shipping bills including 7 cases of M/s. Annapurna Yarn Fabrics were appealable orders under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the petitioner while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity passed the aforesaid orders as an Assessing Officer which were appealable orders although the competent authority of the department accepted the said orders passed by the petitioner and allowed implementations of the same. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the competent authority of the Customs Department did not even challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the petitioner after initiation of the enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation in December, 1994.

3. ON 1st October, 2004, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for major penalty alleging that the said petitioner had given order for logging of the exports of M/s. Annapurna Yarn Fabrics in DEEC Book, misinterpreting the order dated 16th April, 2004 passed by the Principal Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The entire allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet were in respect of the consignments of export of HDPE woven fabric of M/s. Annapurna Yarn Fabrics. The petitioner filed his written statement. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner herein decided to drop the charges levelled against the said petitioner.

4. ACCORDINGLY, a reference was made to the Central Vigilance Commission for necessary concurrence. The Central Vigilance Commission thereafter, advised for converting the proceeding for violation of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 into simple minor penalty proceedings and to impose suitable minor penalty on the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter, passed an order in the name of the President bearing No. 13/2005 dated 30th June, 2005 withdrawing the Memo of charges dated 1st October, 2002 issued earlier to the petitioner and initiated a fresh proceeding under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on the selfsame facts and charges as a follow-up action pursuant to the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission.

A Memorandum being No. 28/2005 dated 30th June, 2005 was issued to the petitioner regarding the minor penalty proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and the petitioner herein submitted reply to the said memorandum. On receipt of the aforesaid reply from the petitioner, advice of Union Public Service Commission was sought for in relation to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. The Union Public Service Commission thereafter, advised for imposition of penalty of reduction, by a stage, in the time scale of pay for a period of one year, without cumulative effect on the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the aforesaid advice of the Union Public Service Commission, Disciplinary Au