As per said bill of entry, contents declared therein was Lead Scrap imported from Dubai. 15. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. While approving the action of the respondents in that case in seeking CVC advice, the Honble Supreme Court clearly emphasized on the DA taking decision uninfluenced by the CVCs advice in any manner. 10. Third Co accused Dhanda stated he was to go to Dubai was forced by CBI to take money to Chander Shekhar from Delhi to Ludhiana. 12. Remanded straight to JC. Learned counsel further contended that the CVC Act that came into existence in the year 2003, gives adequate power to CVC to provide advice to the Government. Court not convinced that PC (CBI Custody) is at all required. For this reason, as suggested by the learned counsels in these OAs, these three OAs were heard together. vs. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5) SCC 349, 2. The first issue mentioned above is common between this OA, OA 53/2011 and OA 321/2012. Database || 19. Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1980 SC 1170, 3. However, we do not find that this argument is applicable in the present case because it is not the contention of the respondents that the dropping of charges against Sh. However, the appeal of the applicant was rejected by the AA vide order dated 18.02.2010. Nagarkar, nor we have the relevant material before us, to decide the question of parity. The DA, after considering the representation of the applicant, sent its recommendation to the DG (Vigilance) for the reconsideration of the advice of CVC given earlier. We, however, would not venture into the area of appreciation of comparative evidence against the two i.e., the applicant and Sh. The bill of entry dated 30.08.1993 was found to have been filed in the name of M/s. The DG (Vigilance) vide letter dated 30.05.2000 communicated to the DA enclosing a copy of CVC note dated 24.05.2000, advising modification of findings of enquiry officer in respect of the applicant and also for imposition of stiff major penalty. Referring to CVCs instruction vide office orders dated 09.05.2005 and 16.04.2004, he clarified that there was a Group A Officer involved in the same case, a reference to CVC was necessary as per the instructions. It is quite apparent from the above sequence of events that in this case the DA not only made an unnecessary reference to the CVC after making up his mind on the basis of the representation of the applicant on the fresh disagreement note issued to him but also was overruled by the CVCs insistence on sticking to its earlier second stage advice. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. As long as the provision of CVC Act was not inconsistent or contrary to the CCS (CCA) Rules, there was nothing wrong in following the provision of this Act. As a principle there can not be any disagreement with the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents, as established in the aforesaid judgments, that the law does not approve on a negative equity when it comes to the claims of any applicant vis-`-vis a wrong benefit given to another person, which is not sanctioned by the existing law. (iii) On the same set of facts other co-noticees in the same case were let off by dropping charges against them, while stiff penalty of dismissal was imposed on the applicant. Despite that in its final order DA going by CVCs reiteration of his earlier second stage advice imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the applicant and as the same order was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, it is apparent that they were all guided by the dictates of CVC which had no role under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which govern the field. He also asserted that the applicant could not claim parity with some other officers in whose case either the CVC agreed to drop the charges or no action was taken against the officers after the decision of this Tribunal and the Honble High Court. DG DRI (the accursed) has written a secret letter the higher authority for further guidance and direction to make an investigation of fraud involving about ₹ 2000 of GST evasion by way of Circular Trading and fake invoicing. It is important to note instead to grating Police Custody or to CBI Custody, vacation bench / Duty Magistrate has sent the accused to Judicial Custody with the following observations. With regard to the exoneration of the applicant in the proceedings under the Customs Act, learned counsel submitted that the proceedings under the Customs Act were for violation of provisions of Customs Act whereas the present proceedings were under CCS (CCA) Rules which were independent from the proceedings under the Customs Act. 2. He produced letters written to higher ups which were not acted upon. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. * Enter a valid Journal (must It is an Act subsequent to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was, therefore, nothing but over simplification by the applicant to state that all these authorities particularly the DA was dictated by the advice of an external agency, i.e. The purpose of CVC was to ensure that departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and the procedure established in law and the Government officials accused of violating the conduct rules or committing dereliction of duties were not let off or punished without proper evidence and reasons. 2. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. After that while we are not aware of the view taken by the DA on the report of the Inquiry Officer, it is seen from the documents that on the basis of the CBECs note, the CVC had agreed with the proposed line of disagreement and the disagreement note was issued by the DA on the basis of the advice of the CVC. The DG (Vigilance) directed the Commissioner Central Excise being the AA vide letter dated 06.10.2006 to re-examine the case against the applicant from the evidentiary theory of preponderance of probability and ascertain whether any case could be made out against him on the basis of evidences recorded and also whether the department had gone in appeal against the order dated 25.06.2003 of CEGAT confirming the order of the Commissioner (Adjudication). Under EWS and LIG categories, 280 and 657 loans with loan amount of ` 1.98 crore & ` 32.13 crore have been sanctioned respectively and the outstanding amount was ` 71.68 crore (17793 a/cs) & ` 860.68 crore (34136 a/cs) respectively. The Honble High Court in that case had observed that those guidelines in no manner interfere with the discretion and jurisdiction of the competent authorities concerned either in the matter of placing the accused officer under suspension pending enquiry or initiating such action, as may be necessary, in public interest to protect the integrity and purity of the investigation process. One of the submissions of the appellant was that a copy of the report of the Vigilance Commissioner should have been made available to him when he was called upon to show cause why the punishment of reduction in rank should not be imposed upon him. What is not understood is the reason for a second reference of DA to DG (Vigilance) and CVC at this stage. V-670/2/94-Pt./102 dated 26.08.2008, the CVC reiterated its second stage advice for imposition of stiff major penalty on the applicant. The respondents have filed SLP in the Honble Supreme Court against the decision of the CEGAT exonerating the applicant, but no stay had been granted. The second stage advice of CVC was not based on the facts as it did not take into account the order of this Tribunal dated 17.01.2003 in respect of Ajay Banik and J.N.Meena and the order of Honble Bombay High Court dated 11.08.2009 upholding the order of this Tribunal. The applicant submitted representation to the AA vide letter dated 19.02.2009 followed by an additional appeal dated 03.03.2009 bringing out, inter alia, the order of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal dated 17.01.2003 in the cases filed by Ajoy Banik and J.N.Meena, Appraisers at Kandla Customs House also chargesheeted along with the applicant. 1. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal, AIR 1991 SC 1507, the Honble Supreme Court has held that authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel, the written arguments submitted by both the sides and other documents placed on record. The AA was consistent while revaluating the evidence from the view point of the principle of preponderance of probability and communicated his views to the DG (Vigilance) that there was no evidence to continue with the charges.
Indonesia Budget 2020, Is Karl Farbman Real, Magic Mike Channing Tatum, Metro-north Millerton, Eternal Movie Release Date, Headstrong Meaning In Marathi, Hotels In Collinsville, Va, Howe Name, Ifs Books,