IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2810 OF 2008 Union of India and others. ... Petitioners Vs. Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar ... Respondent Mr. R.R. Shetty for the petitioners. Mr. S.V. Marne for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2009 P.C.: The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai wherein the original application filed by the present respondent was allowed and the charge sheet dated 30th March, 1999 and the order dated 22nd June, 2007 were quashed. The respondent is working as Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II. She was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 30th March, 1999 for certain irregularities and having failed to exercise due diligence. There were two Articles of Charge. Enquiry in accordance with law was conducted and the enquiry officer vide his report dated 14th February, 2006 found that Article of Charge II was not proved while Article of Charge I was partially proved limited to the extent of having not exercised due diligence of supervision. The relevant findings in the enquiry report reads as under: “I find that this is a speculative argument and there is no evidence to indicate that the C.O. actually checked the PMV. While the fact that these omissions escaped the attention of the officers who processed the claims, in Export and Docks departments (who had the primary responsibility for checking the PMV), as well as her subordinates in the Drawback department, before they reached the C.O., and the fact that the fault was found in only four out of over a thousand shipping bills, can be regarded as mitigating factors, the C.O. also appears to have been at fault in not applying the basic check regarding the admissibility of drawback in the four impugned shipping bills. However, as I have also noted earlier, there is no evidence of any mala fides or complicity of the C.O. in granting undue benefits to the exporters, nor has any motive been established against her. Thus she appears to have been guilty only of an omission to exercise due care and diligence in respect of the impugned shipping bills. Hence the charge of lack of integrity cannot be said to be proved. However, as a result of her omission to consider the basic aspect of admissibility, it will have to be held that the C.O. did not exercise due care and diligence in sanctioning the drawback claim in respect of the four impugned shipping bills. Only to this extent, the charge of lack of devotion to duty can be said to be proved.” 2. The Disciplinary Authority communicated its order vide letter dated 24.5.2007 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for one year. 3. The impugned order was challenged by the delinquent officer and the application was accepted. The Central Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that Articles of Charge have not been substantially proved against the applicant before it and also that there was undue delay. Beside noticing this, the Tribunal specifically noticed that no loss has been caused to the Government. In the finding recorded on the enquiry proceeding, the integrity of the officer was not doubted. It is relevant to notice that the cases instituted by the department against the exporters entirely failed on merits. Thus, it is difficult to say that the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from any infirmity of law or is based on no evidence whatsoever. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has already suffered considerably and as she has been denied the promotion for a quite long period of 12 years. A point of view has been taken by the Administrative Tribunal on cumulative effect of the findings recorded and the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Merely because a formal part of Article of Charge partially was established against the delinquent officer, per se, would not be a ground for this court to interfere. There being no loss to the Government and the finding of the enquiry officer as afore noticed, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.