The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise vs P. Laxminarayana Reddy

Ravi Malimath, J.—Case of the petitioners is that when the respondent was functioning as a Inspector of Central Excise, he visited the premises of one M/s. Balaji Agro Services, New Tharagupet, Bangalore and M/s. Neelima Agro, New Tharagupet, Bangalore to search their business premises without search authorisation. Hence a charge memo was issued to him and an enquiry was conducted. Charges were held to be proved. He was dismissed from service.

The appeal and the subsequent revision were also rejected. Questioning the same he preferred O.A. 351/2006 before the Tribunal. By order dated 24.07.2008, the application was allowed in part holding that the appellate authority has not properly complied with Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules and hence remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. Thereafter the appeal was rejected upholding the order of dismissal. The Revision was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the instant application was filed before Tribunal wherein the enquiry report and the impugned order of dismissal and consequential orders were quashed and respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant into service with 50% arrears. Questioning the same, the respondents have filed this petition.

Learned counsel for petitioners contend that the order passed by tribunal is bad in law and requires to be set aside. The tribunal committed an error in reversing the impugned order and substantial opportunity was granted to respondent and hence they cannot complain against the same. On the other hand Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent''s counsel defends the order of tribunal and contends it as just and proper. The fact is that without any authorisation he visited the premises of M/s. Neelima Agro, New Tharagupet, Bangalore and did not reveal his identity when questioned by group of persons surrounding him who took him to the police station. Thereafter his identity was made known. It was further stated that one Sri. Eshawar Rao, Sub-Inspector of police had accompanied during the aforesaid visits. Submission of the said Sri. B. Eshwara Rao and Sri. M.V. Sudhindra were obtained and inspite of obtaining the said submission, respondent was given opportunity to cross examine. No other evidence of any person was led in.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal'' held that there is no clear evidence by any person. The inquiring authority violated the principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirements under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. That the finding recorded by the enquiry officer therefore amounts to a perverse finding and therefore charges leveled against respondent are to be held as not proved. That the petitioners have also committed an error in imposing punishment of dismissal. There is no error committed by tribunal calling for interference. The facts would show that there was no opportunity to the respondent to cross examine. Hence, we are of the considered view that the enquiry officer committed an error in holding that charges are proved when the witness was not cross examined. The charges cannot be sustained. Based on the facts and circumstance''s of the case there is no error committed by the tribunal in setting aside the order of dismissal.

Insofar as grant of 50% arrears is concerned, the tribunal was of the view in the facts and circumstances of the case payment of arrears from the date of dismissal till date of order should be restricted to an extent of 50%. However, we are of the opinion that 50% arrears granted by the tribunal would be on the higher side. In the interest of justice and based on the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it appropriate that arrears granted by tribunal be reduced to an extent of 25%. Consequently the petition is partly allowed. The arrears granted by tribunal to an extent of 50% stands reduced to an extent of 25%. Rest of the order is confirmed.

Order of tribunal as modified by this order shall be complied by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.