K.CHANDRU, J.

Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and have perused the records.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short Tribunal] made in OA.No.8 of 2003 dated 19. 2003 and has filed the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner was given a Memo dated 212. 1992 asking her explanation as to under whose orders she and another officer they conducted examination/verification of Seals in respect of the consignment belonging to a shipping bill. Thereafter a charge memo was given to her under Rule 14 of CCA [CCS] Rules, 1965 only on 24. 1998. Subsequent to the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted and it was held that the petitioner who was an Examiner, without physically examining the goods on 011. 1992 certified the said goods.

4. In her reply the petitioner had stated that the charge memo was issued after six years. Though she had stated that she wrote the examination report on 011. 1992 whereas the Ship M.V.Tiger Star had left with the Container on 310. 1992 itself. The Enquiry Officer held that the first charge wa