VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 291
607
framed against him. The first charge was that he under-assessed
the values of certain articles and identified a person not known to
him before and who is not traceable, with a view to handing over the
parcels under window delivery system. The second charge was that
two letter mail articles containing compasses were delivered by
window delivery by changing the description from compasses to letter
pens in the way bills and he under-assessed their value enabling the
recepient to receive them free of duty.
An inquiry was made and the Inquiry Officer held both the
charges as proved. The Collector of Custom, the disciplinary authority,
found both the charges proved and dismissed the respondent from
service with effect from 1-7-80. In appeal, the Chief Vigilance Officer,
Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, while agreeing with
the findings of the disciplinary authority, modified the penalty of dismissal
from service to that of compulsory retirement from service.
The respondent challenged the orders by writ petition before
the High Court of Madras and a single Judge held that there was no
credible evidence on the charges and allowed the writ petition and
directed reinstatement of the respondent. The department filed an
appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing earlier, the Division
Bench of the High Court took the view that the finding of the single
Judge that the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to show
cause against the finding recorded by the Inquiring Authority before
that finding was accepted by the disciplinary authority was
unassailable and declined to go into the merits of the finding. The
finding recorded on merits by the single Judge was therefore set
aside and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to be
proceeded with from the stage of giving a fresh notice to show cause
against the punishment to be proposed by him with a direction that a
copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer should be made available
to the respondent and he should be given an opportunity to be heard
in person if he so desires or to make representation in writing if he
desires to make any such representation.