- (1.) THE present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 1.11.2004 (Annexure9 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short "the Tribunal") as also the order dated 11.5.2011 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise DivisionI, Kanpur communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 5.7.2001 (Annexure6 to the Writ Petition) by the Joint Commissioner (P&V), Central Excise, Kanpur. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to pay interest over the retiral benefits of pension, deathcumretiral gratuity and leave encashment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 18,863/ against commutation value.
(2.) IT appears that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise in DivisionI, Central Excise, Range3, Kanpur. The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.1997. It further appears that on account of an Audit Objection dated 28.9.1994 by the Senior Deputy Accountant General, U.P. Allahabad regarding loss of revenue , chargesheets dated 6.1.1997 and 3.4.1997 were issued to the petitioner and three others. As the petitioner was retiring from service on 31.1.1997, an order for continuation of the proceedings under Rule 9(2)(a) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short "the Pension Rules, 1972") was also issued and the same was served on the petitioner by the order dated 22.1.1997. It further appears that the Enquiry Report dated 15.5.1998 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer (Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise DivisionI, KanpurI). The Enquiry Report dated 15.5.1998 was communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 26.5.1998 sent by the Commissioner, Central Excise, KanpurI. Copies of the said communication dated 26.5.1998 alongwith the Enquiry Report dated 15.5.1998 have been collectively annexed as Annexure1 to the Writ Petition.
(3.) THE Inquiry Officer in the said Enquiry Report concluded as under: "On the basis of foregoing I feel that allegation of revenue loss as made in the Memorandum is baseless and there appears no revenue loss. Hence the question of failure of charged officer in detecting said revenue loss does not arise. Charges levelled in this regard in the memorandum is not sustainable." ;