-1- Writ Petition No. 2461 or 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2461 OF 2010 Union of India and others ..Petitioners vs. Manoj Kumar Sarangi ...Respondent Mr. Vinod B. Joshi for the petitioners. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Rajkumar Mishra, instructed by M/s. M. Rajkumar & Co., for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR , JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th March, 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai, by which the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application No. 228 of 2007 filed by the present respondent and the penalty imposed on the respondent was set aside by the Tribunal. The respondent was subjected to charge-sheet and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in the matter of clearing the packages containing dutiable electronic goods without charging the appropriate customs duty leviable on them. The enquiry officer found that the article of charge had not proved against the respondent. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding and passed an order of penalty dated 31st -2- Writ Petition No. 2461 or 2010 December, 2005. The order of the disciplinary authority has been upheld by the appellate authority. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer was justified in concluding that no case is made out against the respondent. Even as per the report of the U.P.S.C., there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and the witnesses also not supported the department during the enquiry. In paragraph 22 of the order, the Tribunal has observed thus: “22. From the above factors it is abundantly clear that the enquiry officer has come to a definite finding that both the said witnesses had not supported the case of the department during the enquiry and further that their earlier statements were not at all voluntary. Moreover, when tested on the touchstone of cross examination the said voluntary statements had been disproved. We, therefore, note that the said alleged voluntary statements were neither produced as documents nor proved in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority has not found any fault with the said fact finding by the enquiry officer and yet in a vague manner disagreed with the same. In view of the fact that both the witnesses were departmental witnesses and not the witnesses of the CO and that none of them was declared hostile by the department to enable them to cross examine their own witnesses, the second ground of disagreement note is also not sustainable in law. There is no law to the effect that an alleged voluntary statement given at the back of the applicant would be preferred to the cross examined version of the statement. Otherwise, the entire enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would become meaningless. The very safeguards of examination and cross examination which have been incorporated in the Rules to bring out the truth from falsehood would become redundant and meaningless.” 2. Considering the fact that this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and the Tribunal in the Original Application has considered this aspect -3- Writ Petition No. 2461 or 2010 in greater detail and even the UPSC has also found that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner in any manner, we are of the opinion that this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to a different conclusion. It is pointed out by Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the respondent, that the department had not taken any steps for a considerable period in the matter of staying the order passed by the Tribunal and it is only when the respondent filed a contempt petition, at a belated stage this petition is filed. Considering the aforesaid aspect as well as considering the well reasoned order of the Tribunal, in our view, there is no substance in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.