IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 8742 of 2010(S) ------------------------- OA.34/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.BALACHANDRAN, (CHEMICAL EXAMINER, RETIRED FROM CUSTOMHOUSE, COCHIN) RESIDING AT SREYAS, KUTTANAPPILLY HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682028. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI. * (DELETED) 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMHOUSE, KOCHI-9. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (VIGILANCE), CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KAUTILYA MARG, CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-21. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX FOR R1 TO 4 *(1ST RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.4.10.2010 IN THE W.P.(C)). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.24.1.2005. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DT.30.11.2004. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DT.30.8.2005. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.24.2.2006. P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATIONS TO THE REVENUE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ON 14.5.2006. P6: .DO. ON 11.6.2006. P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.JUNE 2006. P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.8.8.2006. P9: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.11.9.2006. P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.1.3.2007. P11: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DT.7.3.2007 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P12: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DT.31.10.2007. P13: TRUE OCPY OF LETTER DT.12.3.2008. P14: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.1.4.2008. P15: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT. P16: TRUE COPY OF DENATURING OF SPIRIT RULES 1972. P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.18.10.2004. P18: TRUE COPY OF LETTER TO CENTRAL REVENUE CONTROL LABORATORY (CRCL). P19: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.25.10.2004. P20: TRUE COPY OF O.A.34.2009 BY THE ORDER DT.13.11.2009. P21: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE O.A. P22: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.5.2010 ISSUED BY R1 APPOINTING THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. P23: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.5.2010 ISSUED BY R1 APPOINTING THE PRESENTING OFFICER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.8742 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioner is a retired Chemical Examiner of the Customs Department at Kochi. Central Bureau of Investigation conducted enquiry with regard to the import of denatured spirit. Allegation is that petitioner after analysis of the samples of imported alcohol certified denaturing beyond the level actually done by the importer. The department's case is that if petitioner's report was acted upon, there would have been a loss of differential duty of above Rs.10 crores. Even though CBI filed a referal report before the Magistrate Court, based on CBI's recommendation departmental proceedings were initiated. Petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him before the C.A.T. which dismissed the prayer for cancellation of charge, but granted six months time to the department to complete the enquiry. This is extended by further six months by the C.A.T. on application by the department. It is against the final orders W.P.(C) 8742/2010 2 of the C.A.T. the petitioner has filed this W.P.(C) before this court. 2. After hearing both sides we do not find any justification for us to interfere with the C.A.T.'s order and allow petitioner's prayer to quash the charges leveled against him because the issue is purely a factual issue which requires to be substantiated in enquiry. Petitioner's specific case is that subsequent to issuing charge against him for the import referred above, one more charge is leveled against him for an import that happened in 2002. According to the petitioner, the enquiry in this regard is barred by limitation. Standing Counsel appearing for the department on the other hand referred to Rule 9(6a) of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules and contended that both the charges are leveled against the petitioner within the timeframe. In any case since even according to the petitioner atleast one charge is leveled against the petitioner within the time permitted, we feel the whole matter could be left to the enquiry officer to decide. The petitioner is given freedom to raise objection against the maintainability of the second charge as well before the Enquiry Officer. Considering the fact that petitioner is retired 5 years back, we direct the respondents to complete the enquiry W.P.(C) 8742/2010 3 and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioner will certainly co-operate with the enquiry and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournment for delaying the matter. If the enquiry could not be completed even after four months, then we direct the respondents to drop the charges leveled against the petitioner and release the pensionary benefits to him. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms