SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has been visited with the consequences of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by cut of his pension by 30%, on account of his having performed quasi judicial functions and that too in conformity with the legal principle laid down by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGAT'), without there being any interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(2.) THE petitioner retired from service, last holding the post of an Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Central Excise and Customs at Patiala, on 31.3.1994. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.4.1996, after two years of his demitting office. This charge-sheet is stated to have been withdrawn on account of lack of sanction from the competent authority and a fresh charge-sheet was issued on 16.3.1998. The factual matrix, which gave rise to the charge-sheet, arises on account of the adjudication by the petitioner of a dispute qua Classification Lists and consequent demand thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri S.P. Srivastva, Commissioner-1, Central Excise, Chandigarh called him on 10.11.1993 and desired that all demand cases involving large amounts of Central Excise Duty should be adjudicated expeditiously, including the cases of M/s Pepsi Foods, Channo. The petitioner claims that there were various assesses engaged in the manufacture of steel products which is an excisable item under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. As per the Department, these products were required to be classified as "flats" under sub-head 7211.19/7211.30 of the Central Excise Tariff, while, on the other hand, as per the assesses, it was required to be classified as "other bars and rods" under sub- head 7214.90. This controversy is stated to have been adjudicated in favour of the assessees by a Special Bench of CEGAT, New Delhi, in order dated 20.12.1990, which decision was circulated to all the Registrars, CEGAT, including at Chandigarh. The department, however, aggrieved of the same, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no interim orders were granted. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner pleads that his predecessor had also approved the Classification Lists, classifying the products in dispute as "other bars and rods", on 20.8.1992, and the petitioner, too, approved eight Price Lists, relating to different manufacturers, by order dated 29.3.1994. This classification was sent to the department and no objection is stated to have been raised and, consequently, the petitioner decided the demand cases arising from the classification dispute in favour of the assessees. The Memorandum dated 16.3.1998, which is in question, was issued with Article of Charges imputing that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, inasmuch as :- "(i) adjudicated the cases transgressing monetary limit fixed for Assistant Collector; and (ii) vacated the demands knowing fully well that the department had gone in appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue which was pending with the Apex Court at that time."
(3.) THE stand of the petitioner is that the Circular in question dated 14.5.1992, prescribing the financial limits, read as under:- "Consequent to this amendment the issue of laying down monetary limits for powers of adjudication of officers of different ranks has been examined by the Board and it has been decided to supersede all existing instructions on the subject and to lay down following monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise cases, other than the cases relating to lists:- approval of classification lists and price lists Designation of officers Amount of duty involved 1. Collector Without limit 2. Additional Collector/ Upto Rs. Ten Lakhs Deputy Collector 3. Assistant Collector Upto Rs. Fifty thousand" ;