ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 26-04-2024 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.01.2023 passed in O.A./050/00234/2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short ‘CAT) whereby and whereunder the aforesaid O.A. has been dismissed.

02. The petitioner while working as Inspector (Sector-

1), Central Excise Range, Bettiah during the period from 31.01.2000 to 07.02.2002, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘Rules 1965’). The charge-memo was issued on 20.12.2005. There were four articles of charges. The petitioner had submitted reply denying the charges on 16.01.2006 and it was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the authority proceeded to appoint the Inquiring Officer and Inquiring Officer submitted his report dated 07.01.2008 on 10.01.2008. On 24.01.2012, the Director, Central Vigilance Commission agreeing with the recommendation of CVO, CBEC advised for major penalty against petitioner Sri S. K. Raman, Inspector and dropping of charges against Smt. Asha Srivastava, Inspector. On 06.03.2012, the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna-Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice as to why the inquiry report should not be rejected and why on the basis of tentative reasons annexed, all the charges should not be considered as proved and why one of the appropriate penalties as specified under Rule 11 of Rules, 1965 should not be imposed upon petitioner. Petitioner furnished his explanation on 15.03.2012. The Disciplinary Authority on 30.03.2012 proceeded to impose penalty and ordered that the pay of petitioner be reduced by 2(two) stage from Rs. 18730/- to Rs. 17370/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 9300-34800/- for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.2012. It was further ordered that petitioner would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay under Rule 11(v) of Rules, 1965”. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.03.2012, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority on 27/28.12.2012 while making an observation that “the Order No. A-731/KOL/2012 dated 19.09.2012 of Hon’ble CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata has given rise to a situation for consideration whether the CESTAT order will have any bearing on the sustainability of the charges levelled against the appellant in the Charge Memorandum”. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for passing order afresh in the light Rule 27(2)(ii) of Rules, 1965. Whereas the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to issue afresh order on 30.10.2013 reiterating earlier penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority and afresh order was passed. Once again petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority assailing afresh order dated 30.10.2013. The appellate authority, on 28.02.2014, modified the Disciplinary Authority’s orders dated 30.10.2013 to the extent of imposing penalty of ‘CENSURE’. Feeling aggrieved by the ‘CENSURE’ penalty, petitioner preferred revision application. The Revisional Authority rejected the revision application on 15/16.09.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of revision application, the petitioner filed OA/050/00234/2017 before the CAT and it was decided on 13.01.2023 whereby the CAT dismissed OA/050/00234/2017.

Hence, the present writ petition.

03. Brief allegations are that in respect of examination of Assessee and declaration for the periods from November, 1999 to March, 2000, the petitioner failed to point out certain discrepancies in the declaration submitted by the Assessee, namely, by M/s. Trishul Electro-Casting (Private) Limited, Bettiah and also failed to make any reference regarding wrongly approved declaratio