Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 592
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar; CJ, Hasnain Massodi, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Narotam Sharma -Resopndent
IPAS W No. 47/2001 c/w LPASVJ No. 375/2002, IP AS W No. 114/2001, CMA No. 166/2001, LPASW No. 364/2000
Decided On : 06-11-2012
Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. A.V. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates for the Respondent.
The exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner was found to be within the scope of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, and the right of the appellants to be heard by the Disciplinary Authority was emphasized.
Headnote:
Revisional Powers - Interpretation of Rule 29(1)(vi) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 - Rule 29
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh in relation to disciplinary proceedings against government servants. The Writ Court set aside the order of the Commissioner, citing violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Commissioner's exercise of revisional powers was within the scope of Rule 29(1)(vi) and that the Writ Court's decision was devoid of substance. The Court also emphasized the appellants' right to be heard by the Disciplinary Authority.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 29(1)(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, violation of principles of natural justice, and applicability of case law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner was within the rules and emphasized the right of the appellants to be heard by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court also disagreed with the applicability of certain case law.
Final Decision: The Appeals preferred by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh were found to have merit, and the Writ Court order was set aside. The Appeals titled Narotam Sharma v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Ors. and Devinder Singh v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Others were dismissed.
1. The Letters Patent Appeal, on hand arises out of the Writ Court order dated 19th July, 2000 whereby the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petitions registered as SWP Nos. 1135 of 1996 and 1156 of 1996 titled Narotam Sharma v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Ors. and Devinder Singh v. Commis#31;sioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Others and quashed the order of Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 23rd July, 1996 im#31;pugned in the Writ Petition. It would be appropriate to have an over-view of background facts, in the first place.
2. The respondents in the appeals were on the relevant date posted as Inspec#31;tors, Central Excise Department. The appellants on 15th May, 1994 received a complaint that one Shri Ashok Sharma Inspector, Central Excise had illegally imported ASAFOETIDA (Hing) under the name of trading firm M/s Saimon Exports, 271, Basant Avenue, Amritsar. The investigation into the complaint re#31;vealed, involvement of S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh in the present appeals. They were found to have facilitated the import of aforesaid commodity.
3. The respondents were issued charge-sheets in terms of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 on 7th September, 1995. The charge-sheets issued against S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh read as under:
"That Shri Narotam Sharma, Inspector in connivance with Shri Ashok Sharma, Devinder Singh and V.K.Dhawan, Inspectors had exported Asa-foetida (Hing) of 3300 Kgs in the name of M/s Siamon Exports, 271, Basant Avenue, Amritsar. Later on the consignment was seized by DRI, Amritsar. Shri Narotam Sharma, Inspector helped Mrs. Swaraj and Mr. K. L. Talwar of M/s Siamon in opening C/A in Union Bank of India in the name of M/s Siamon Exports, 271, Basant Avenue, Amritsar. Shri Sharma also threat#31;ened pressurized Sh. Vijay Sabharwal to file bill of entry and approached Asstt. Collector, Rail Cargo to complete the clearance formalities for the said consignment.
4. The Disciplinary Authority (Additional Commissioner, Railway Customs and Central Excise Department) after enquiry vide its order dated 02.02.1996 dropped proceedings against the two Officers and held the available evidence to be insufficient to prove the charges.
5. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh in his capacity as Revisional Authority perused the record, found the Disciplinary Authority to have discarded evidence that otherwise was relevant and to have erroneously dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh, accordingly, vide order dated 23.07.1996 set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the case to it with a direction to proceed with open enquiry as stipulated under Rule 14(v) of the Central Civil Services (Classifi#31;cation, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 in respect of S/Sh. Narotam Sharma, Devinder Singh and one V.K. Dewan.
6. S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh approached the Writ Court with Writ Petitions (Narotam Sharma v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Ors. and Devinder Singh v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Others) throwing challenge to the order dated 23.07.1996 passed by the Revisional Authority.
7. The Writ Petitions were allowed and the order impugned therein set-aside. The Writ Court was of the opinion that the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Proviso to Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 is to be exercised by an Authority superior to the Appellate Authority and as the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise was Appellate Authority under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, he was not competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction and in exercise thereof set aside the order of Disciplinary Authority. The Writ Court further held that the order im#31;pugned in the Petition was vio
