Rajiv Ranjan vs Union Of India

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is an Indian Revenue Officer of 1991 batch and is presently working as Additional Commissioner at the Commissionerate of Customs

and Central Excise, Faridabad. He was issued a charge memo dated 21.02.2020, alleging certain acts of misconduct. This O.A. is file d challenging

the said charge memo . He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote him from the post of Commissioner to the post of Principal

Commissioner, w.e.f. 02.09.2020, i.e., the date from which his juniors were promoted.

The applicant contends that the charges leveled against him in the charge memo are of the year of 2010 and inquiry into them was conducted by the

Direct orate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 24.11.2011. It is stat ed that there was nothing incriminating against the applicant, but still the charge

memo was issued only with the objective to deny him the promotion. He made extensive reference to the developments, that have taken place in the

inquiry conducted by the DRI, and submits that there is absolutely no basis for issuing the charge memo. Reliance is placed upon certain judgments of

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

We heard Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Manish Ku mar, learned counsel for respondents, at length, through video

conferencing.

The charge memo is the one dated 21.02.2020. The charge framed against the applicant reads:-

“ Article-I

1 Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Commissioner (then Additional Commissioner) (D.O.B. 27.12.1967) while being posted at Central Excise, Faridabad (erstwhile

Delhi-IV) from 1 2.08.2009 to 29.07.2011 was actively involved in a case of fraudulent export with the connivance with one Shri Sajjan Kumar.

During the course of investigation, fraudulent export and irregularities of r emittances were noticed by D RI in respect of M/s Om Shreem Ananda

Foods (P) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as “M /s OSAFPLâ€) in which Shri. Baikunth Prasad & Smt. Sarla Singh, parents of Shri Rajiv Ranjan,

Commissioner (then Addl. Commissioner) were shown as Directors alongwith Shri Sajjan Kumar. Investigation carried out by D RI revealed that

export goods w ere deliberately overvalued which resulted in wrong disbursement of excess duty drawback amounting to Rs.8,56,30,705/-. While

investigating the genuineness of export proceeds received by the exporter it was noticed that the remittances also came from third parties who were

based in different cities and some of whom were not even engaged in business relating to carpet or fabrics/garments. Further, during investigation ,

while establishing money tr ail and ascertaining beneficiaries, it was revealed that the declared addresses of 32 domestic entities were involved to

whom funds in excess of Rs.400 Cr. were transferred by exporter entities. Further enquiry and statements of the concerned persons revealed that the

money (so called export proceeds) was transferred to the said domestic firms by RTGS at the behest of Shri Sajjan Kumar and returned in cash to

him. During investigation it was found that foreign remittance was credit ed in Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Janpath, New Delhi in the account

no.0499358000000 1 40 held by M/s OSAFPL and drawback amount pertaining M/s OSAFPL was being deposited in the same bank account. Call

details obtained by the DRI from the concerned Service provider indicated that Shri Rajiv Ranjan and Shri Sajjan Kummar were in constant touch

before the search of the premises of all the exporters. Frequent conversations between Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Rajiv Ranjan, then Additional

Commissioner during and beyond office hours have corroborated the fact of their professional relationship.

1.2 Shri Rajiv Ranjan, theen Additional Commissioner ( now Commissioner) posted in Central Excise Commissionerate, Faridabad (erstwhile Delhi-

IV) had concealed from the department the fact of his involvement a long with Shri Sajjan Kumar in the business activities of M /s OSAFPL where

his parents were Directors along with Sh. Sajjan Kumar, through Ballabhgarh port which was under the administrative control of Central Excise

Commissionerate, Faridabad (Delhi-IV). Further, he has also acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant in as much as he was involved in

providing undue favour to the export Company (s) in which his parents were directors which resulted in loss of revenue to the exchequer and

corresponding gain to the unscrupulous exporters. His failure to intimate the fact of his active involvement in the formation and managing of M/s

OSAFPL to the department shows his intent to conceal vital facts from the department in order to fraudulently avail financial benefits from the

Government exchequer. Thus, it is observed that Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, then Additional Commissioner (now Commissioner) not only acted in contravention

of sub-rules (1 ) (a) and (1) (e) of Rule 15 an d sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 but he also failed to

maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and showing conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant in as much as he failed to maintain

high ethical standards and honesty and did not refrain from doing anything which was contrary to the law, rules, regulations and established practices

and did not declare his private interests relating to his public duties and failed to take steps to resolve the conflicts in a way that protects the public

interest in contravention of sub-rules (i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (viii), (xiii) and (xviii) of Rule 3 (1) of the CCS ( Conduct) Rules, 1964 ibid resulting into hue

revenue loss. These acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri Rajiv Ranjan, then Additional Commissioner (now Commissioner) make him li

able for initiation of Major Penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1 965.â€​

The statement of imputation runs into 15 pages.

The synopsis filed by the applicant runs into 14 pages. If at all anything, it reflects the complexity of entire episode and the ne ed to conduct a

detailed inquiry.

The occasion for the Tribunal to interfere with the charge memo arises, if only it is issued by the authority, not vested with the power, and where

the proposed inquiry is into an issue, which is otherwise stale and barred by latches.

In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the acts alleged in the charge memo are said to have taken place in the year 2010. However, the

applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 26.09.2016. The further action on the disciplinary side was deferred due to the on-going inquiry by the

DRI. In the statement of imputation, it is disclosed that the investigation continued up to the year 2018 and statements of various witnesses were

recorded. Only after it emerged that there are serious allegations against the applicant as to his involvement in the matter, that the competent authority

has decided to issue the charge memo. It is not even alleged that the charge memo was issued by the authority, not vested with the power.

At a time when the Government has initiated steps to bring out transparency, even by retiring the employees by issuing orders under F.R. 56 (j), an

effort is made in the instant case to order departmental inquiry to the serious allegations. The plea raised by the applicant in the instant O.A. is that the

inquiry is unwarranted. Reliance is also placed upon certain judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. We are of the view that the facts of those

cases are substantially different, and in the instant case, neither there is any factual error nor any legal defect in the steps taken by the respondents.

We do not find any merit in this O.A. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.