CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00131/2023 Dated this, the 12^th day of June Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM : HON’BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)

HON’BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)

K.Muthuselvam, S/o. Kandasamy, Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, O/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli 620001. …..Applicant By Advocate M/s. M. Ravi Vs.

1.Union of India, Rep by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, II Floor, Hudco Visala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110066.

2.The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Zone, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600034. 3.The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli 620001. ….Respondents By Advocate Mr. J. Vasu

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-

“to call for the records relating to the Orders in (1) C.No. II/10A/02/2018-VIG dated 19.11.2018 of the 3rd respondent; (2) C.No. II/26/01/2019-CF/VIG CCO dated 20.06.2019 of the 2nd respondent and (3) F.No. C16012/19/2020-Ad.V/6765 dated 18.7.2022 of the 1^st respondent, to quash the same and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and thus render justice.”

2. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows, in brief:-

2.1. The applicant is presently working as Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, at the GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Trichy. The applicant, while working as Inspector of Customs at Trichy Commissionerate was issued with a Charge Memo dated 13.10.2010 in file C.No 11/10-A/05/2010-Vig/197 and corrigendum dated 29.04.2011 for the alleged misconduct of non-examination of goods. Inquiry proceedings were held wherein the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 08.11.2011 finding that the charges alleged in the Charge Memo were “Not Proved”. Subsequently in 2012, the case was also taken up by C.B.I and investigated the same charges / case and the prosecution was launched against officers including the petitioner.

2.2. The Disciplinary Authority introduced some new charges and passed a disagreement note with the Inquiry Officer's report dated 14.03.2012. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 08.08.2016 after a period of 5 years and 10 months imposing a punishment of reduction in pay by three stages from Rs 66,000 to Rs. 60,400 period of one year w.e.f. 1^st Sep, 2016.

2.3. The applicant further submits that in the criminal case launched against him by the CBI, the 2^nd Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, framed charges against the applicant and the applicant filed a Petition for discharge and it was dismissed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No. 331/2013 dated 31.03.2015 in C.C.No. 8/2013. The applicant filed Crl.R.C. (MD) No.244/2015 before the Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and by order dated 16.2.2018, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the applicant was allowed based on merits and the order of the CBI Trial Court was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court and the applicant was discharged from the criminal prosecution proceedings with an observation that there was no prima facie material to show that the applicant, Mr. K. Muthuselvam had measured only the rod / tape.

2.4. Aggrieved over the order dt. 08.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the applicant appealed before the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Tiruchirappalli and on consideration of the appeal, the Appellate Authority passed an order in Appeal No. 01/2018 dated 10.04.2018 in the light of the order of the Hon’ble High Court wherein it was found that all charges against the applicant were found to be unsustainable. The Appellate Authori