- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi passed in Original Application No. 1343 of 2012 dated 15.10.2014.
(2.) Facts in short leading to the writ petition are as follows : Ajai Kumar Arora, respondent no.1 to the writ petition was employed as Superintendent, Custom and Central Excise at Inland Container Depot (ICD), Moradabad. He was proceeded with departmentally for various acts and omissions, which according the department amounted to misconduct by issuance of a charge sheet dated 29.8.2005. Assistant Commissioner, who conducted the departmental enquiry after following the procedure prescribed in the matter of conduct of such enquiry, submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 16.6.2009. Four charges were levelled against the petitioner and in respect of charges no. 1, 3 and 4, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges have not been brought home but so far as charge no.2 is concerned, the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer reads as follows : "Second Charge (para 2 of Annexure-II) is that Shri A.K.Arora, Superintendent had in an unauthorized manner allowed the factory stuffing in respect of the questioned Shipping bills because as per Public Notice No. 15/95 dt. 15.11.95 as well as Exim Policy 1997-2002, the factory stuffing was not permissible in the said case. As per Public Notice No. 15/95 dated 15.11.95, the stuffing is to be allowed in the factory of production or in a Customs area. Further, in the said Public Notice, it has been clarified as to the types of cases which merit permissions for Factory Stuffing. However, the fact remains that in this case, the said power has been exercised by Shri A.K.Arora, Superintendent beyond his authority. Public Notice No. 15/95 dated 15.11.95 does not specify that Assistant/Deputy Commissioner is empowered to allow said factory stuffing as the said Public Notice specifies only type of cases which shall merit for permitting factory stuffing. However, there is precedence that factory stuffing permission is being allowed by the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner and Shri A.K.Arora, Superintendent in his submission dt. 18.10.10 has submitted copies factory stuffing permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of other units. He has insisted that the factory stuffing permission in this case was also given by the Assistant Commissioner although no copy of such permission could be furnished by him. However, the facts remain that Shri A.K.Arora, Superintendent had overlooked as to how a factory engaged in the manufacture of chemical products, can do manufacturing of garments & watches in the same premises and thereby gave orders for factory stuffing. Thus there is lapse on the part of the charged officer."
(3.) It may be noticed that the Enquiry Officer specifically pointed that there has been a lapse of the post of the charged officer and that he had exceeded his authority in permitting the stuffing. The Enquiry Officer also took note of the fact that the petitioner had contended that the orders for such stuffing were issued by the Assistant Commissioner but in fact, he failed to produce any document in support thereof. The enquiry report was forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner for his comments and similarly a copy of the enquiry report along with the comments of the disciplinary authority were also forwarded to the Director General of Vigilance for his comments. The Director General of Vigilance vide the order dated 22.5.2010 found that it was a case for major penalty. The representation made by the employee along with the report of the Director General of Vigilance was taken note by the disciplinary authority. After affording opportunity of personal hearing, he decided to impose the penalty of reduction of his pay by two stages for a period of three years and one month without the effect of postponing his future increments of pay vide order dated 29th October 2010.;