CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 27^th day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

N.Ashokraj, Superintendent of Central Excise, Audit-II Commissionerate, Central Excise Zone, Chennai. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s M. Ravi Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise (Original Authority), O/o Joint Commissioner (P&V), Central Excise, Chennai-III, No.121, Mahathma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appellate Authority), O/o Commissioner Central Excise, Chennai-III, No.121, Mahathma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise (Revision Authority), O/o Chief Commissioner Central Excise, Chennai-III, No.26/1, Mahathma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Challenging the of punishment of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.9250/- to 8750/- for the period one year, imposed by the 1^st respondent and which has been confirmed in appeal and revision, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of all the said orders and to render justice.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The applicant entered the service of the respondent as an Inspector on 14.05.1985 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Superintendent. While serving as an Inspector of Central Excise at Tuticorin in December 1988, he was assigned the duty of examining export cargo (garments) and verifying that the quantity specified in the Shipping Bill matched the actual goods presented for stuffing in the container destined for export.

He further states that the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) is an organization established solely to promote exports by facilitating access to overseas markets and earning foreign exchange. This is done by coordinating with customs officials and exporters. To expedite the export process and meet the demands of international markets, a quota system was introduced. Under this system, the requirements of foreign countries are matched with suitable exporters capable of delivering the goods on time. In this context, AEPC had set a statistical deadline of 31.12.1998 for the export of certain goods. Exporters were directed to produce the export cargo at the designated customs area along with the Shipping Bills before this date. However, actual export by commencement of voyage was not mandatory at that point; the primary objective was to record the quantity of goods being exported. The AEPC’s instructions did not have statutory force nor were they treated as a model code of conduct; rather, they served as procedural guidance requiring exporters to present goods for export within the timeline specified in the Shipping Bills. The applicant, with due diligence and commitment, examined all goods mentioned in the Shipping Bills, made the necessary entries, and the process was supervised by his superior officers. The export proceeded without any objection at the time. However, in 2001, a Charge Memo was issued against the applicant, alleging that he, in collusion with exporters, cleared export consignments without physically examining them. These allegations were thoroughly investigated by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of Central Excise, and a departmental inquiry was initiated on the grounds of failure to maintain integrity, among other charges. The inquiry was conducted primarily based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the SIIB, which was contrary to the Circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue. Upon the charges being held as proved, the applicant was punished with a reduction of two increments for one year, without cumulative effect. The appeal and revision petitions filed by the applicant were also dismissed by the concerned authorities. Hence, the present Orig