HITESH CHANDRA MEDHI vs REVENUE on 14 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

By way of this O.A., applicant makes a prayer to set aside the impugned Memorandum of Charge sheet dated 18.12.2009, Inquiry Report dated 16.05.2013, Penalty Order dated 31.05.2022 and Appellate Authority’s order dated 06.06.2024 and to grant him all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts as stated by the applicant in the instant case are that – the applicant while posted at the Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati (LGBIA in short) under the Guwahati Customs Division during the period from 13.06.2005 to 08.08.2006, miscellaneous foreign goods valued at Rs. 80,56,650/- arrived at LGBIA from Bangkok by Flight No. IC-294 on 12.07.2006 were seized by the Guwahati Customs Division Anti-smuggling Unit on 18.07.2006 vide Case No. 22/CL/IMP/AS/GAU/2006-07 dated 18.07.2006 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of fraudulent imports by mis-declaration as "personal effects" to escape payment of customs duty and, therefore, liable for

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. On completion of the investigation in respect of the above mentioned seizure dated 18.07.2006, proceedings under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 were initiated. Show Cause Notice C. No. VIII (10) 02/CUS/SH/07/3221-50 (B) dated 10.07.2007 (the SCN for brevity) was issued to all the consignees of the said goods as well as seven departmental officers including the applicant proposing confiscation of the said goods and imposition of penalties on the Notices. As per the applicant, the SCN was issued selectively to only a few of the officers leaving aside some other concerned officers including the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Guwahati, Superintendent and Inspector of Customs Air Intelligent Unit, who were responsible and actively involved and concerned in the entire functioning of the department in clearance of passengers, baggage, unaccompanied baggage and import goods etc. The applicant worked under direct control and command of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Superintendent of Customs posted at LGBI.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

3. The applicant participated in the proceeding. Thereafter, the matter had been decided by the Adjudicating Officer [Commissioner of Customs (Preventive], North Eastern Region, Shillong vide Adjudication Order No. CСРА NER/ 04/ 2010 dated 22.02.2015, issued under C.No. VIШ (10) 02/ CUS/SH/ 07/ Pt.II/ 9955-85 (A) dated 24.02.2010, under which the said goods were confiscated and penalties were imposed on certain notices. The applicant was unconditionally absolved of the charges in the absence of evidence and nothing adverse against the applicant in discharge of his duty related to the above-mentioned seizures. The Respondent No. 5, entirely based on the investigation report, submitted by the Customs Investigating Officers under the Customs Act, 1962, issued the impugned Memorandum of Charge sheet bearing letter No. II(10)/A/10/CIU-VIG/2006/936 dated 18.12.2009 with one Article of Charge, which is quoted herein below: "That during his tenure as Inspector at LGBI Airport, Guwahati Shri. Hitesh Chandra Medhi failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in contravention of Rule 3 (1), (i) (ii) (iii) and 3(2) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 in as

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

much as he corrupted and misused his official position and power for personal gain by aiding and abetting in the fraudulent clearance of 711 Unaccompanied Baggages and Import Cargoes during the period 03.06.05 to 11.07.06 causing pecuniary loss of crores of rupees of revenue to the Central Government Exchequer."

4. In the Article of Charge, it has been alleged that the applicant corrupted and misused his official position and power for personal gain by “aiding and abetting” in the fraudulent clearance of 711 unaccompanied baggage and import cargoes during the period 03.06.05 to 11.07.05 causing pecuniary loss of crores of rupees of revenue t the Central Government exchequer. That the applicant after receipt of the impugned Memorandum of Charge sheet dated 18.12.2009, submitted a detailed written statement denying the alleged charges on 08.01.2010 and requested to supply the relied upon documents. Applicant also submitted another written statement on 28.05.2010 in continuation of his earlier written statement dated 08.01.2010. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply/written statement submitted by the applicant appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to proceed with the inquiry proceeding under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and accordingly the inquiry

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

proceeding was conducted by the Inquiry Officer wherein the applicant had participated. The Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report dated 16.05.2013 came to the conclusion that the officer has contravened Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii) & 3 (2) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

5. As per the applicant, the Inquiry Officer totally failed to point out any specific evidence as regard alleged commission of offences contained in the Charge Memo dated 18.12.2009. If there are certain irregularities committed by the applicant while discharging his duties while posted at LGBIA, but said irregularities does not fall within the purview of misconduct. Inquiry report dated 16.05.2013 was forwarded to the applicant vide letter dated 18.06.2013 with liberty to make representation, if any. Accordingly, applicant made a detailed representation on 29.07.2013 wherein he stated against the inquiry report that two witnesses namely; Mr. K.G. Tennyson and Shri Lachit Baruah were co-accused in the Customs case along with the applicant who were subsequently exonerated vide Order dated 22/02/2010 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (NER), Shillong. A statement

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

of a co-accused in the Customs case can't be evidence against a co accused in the present disciplinary proceedings. In the representation, applicant had also relied on Para 5 of Circular dated 24.02.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. In the representation, applicant had also relied on the letter dated 24.02.2011 and stated that the Inquiry Officer had relied on statements made in Customs inquiry without providing opportunity to cross-examine. Thereafter, the Commissioner Central Excises, Shillong, vide order No. 49/CIU-VIG/SH/2014 dated 23.07.2014, after a lapse of more than one year in a most mechanical manner followed the impugned inquiry report dated 16.05.2013, without independent application of mind, and also on the basis of certain irrelevant facts, came to а conclusion alleging that the applicant is in connivance with the concerned controlling Superintendents and other Inspectors have prepared the alleged fabricated 86 UB Files after being transferred from the LGBI airport, it was further alleged that he had signed against 42 entries in the relevant register and also alleged that consignments of deferent dates

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

have been cleared in the name of same passenger by the applicant and imposed the following penalty vide penalty order dated 23.07.2014. The relevant portion of the Order of penalty is quoted herein below: "I order for reduction in the pay of Shri Hitish Chandra Medhi, Inspector to a lower stage in the time scale of what he is at presently drawing for a period of two years effective from the date of the order. Shri Hitish Chandra Medhi, Inspector is at present drawing basic pay of Rs. 20,040/- (Pay Band) plus Rs. 4,800/- (Grade Pay) in the scale of pay Rs. 9,300/--- 34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- and I hereby order that his pay be fixed to a lower stage of basic pay of Rs. 18,600/- (Pay Band) plus Rs. 4,800/- (Grade Pay) for a period of 2 (two) years with cumulative effect. In other word Shri Hitish Chandra Medhi, Inspector will not earn increment of pay during the period of 2 (two) years of such reduction and on the expiry of the 2(two) years period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing of future increment of his pay under rule 11 (v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. I, further order that the period that the Charged Officer was placed under suspension be treated as "not spent on duty".

6. That being aggrieved with the order of penalty dated 23.07.2014, applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority wherein the applicant inter alia raised the arbitrary and illegal action of the then disciplinary authority in imposition of the penalty order pointing out that the article of charges contained in the impugned charge memo dated

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

18.12.2009 entirely framed on assumption and presumption, indefinite, tentative and on extraneous consideration and the charges are not definite and specific. However, the Appellate Authority did not dispose of the said appeal inspite of three consecutive reminders on 03.11.2014, 31.12.2014 and 25.02.2015. Situated thus, the applicant had approached this Tribunal through O.А No. 040/00197 of 2015 praying for setting aside of the impugned Memorandum of Charge sheet dated 18.12.2009, inquiry Report dated 16.05.2013 and penalty order dated 23.07.2014. Said O.A. was disposed of vide Order dated 02.06.2015 directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within two months. The Appellate Authority without application of his independent mind, rejected the appeal of the applicant vide order dated 30.09.2015 after more than one year.

7. The applicant being aggrieved with the impugned Memorandum of Charge sheet dated 18.12.2009, Inquiry Report dated 16.05.2013, Penalty Order dated 23.07.2014 and Appellate Authority's order dated 30.09.2015 had approached this Tribunal through OA No. 040/00085/2016,

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

which was disposed of vide Order dated 11.03.2020 with the following direction: "14. After taking into entire conspectus of the case, by taking note of fair proceeding and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shatrughan Lal & Ors (Supra), we hold that in the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide memorandum of charge sheet dated 18.12.2009 exists some procedural lapse. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authorities more particularly disciplinary authority to supply the document as sought for by the applicant in his written statement of defence dated 08.01.2010 by giving opportunity to defend the applicant himself in the proceedings from the stage of supplying of documents. 15. It is further opined that if the authority finds that if documents sought in the written statement of defence is not connected in any manner in the proceedings, the reason is to be assigned with due opportunity of the applicant to substantiate the requirement of the said list of documents as mentioned in the written statement of defence. We accordingly set aside the punishment order dated 23.07.2014 as well as the appellate order dated 19.03.2015."

8. That the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CE, Guwahati vide letter dated 07.09.2021 had requested the applicant to substantiate the reason for asking documents which was sought for by the applicant in his written statement of defence dated 08.01.2010. In response to that, applicant in had submitted his reply dated 13.09.2021 wherein he had justified the reason for asking the documents which he sought in his written statement of defence dated 08.01.2010. The

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Principal Commissioner, CGST & СЕ Commissionerate, GST Bhawan, Guwahati vide letter dated 10.11.2021 had informed the applicant that documents which the applicant sought for vide his application dated 13.09.2021 are not available in record and cannot be issued. As per the applicant, the reply dated 10.11.2021 of the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CE is without any justification as to why those documents are not required as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order 11.03.2020 passed in OA No. 85/2016. Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner, CGST & СЕ Commissionerate, GST Bhawan, Guwahati, acting as disciplinary authority had issued the impugned penalty order No. 40/CIU-VIG/GHY/2022 dated 31.05.2022 whereby he has imposed the same penalty order which was issued vide penalty order dated 24.07.2014. Against the said penalty order dated 24.07.2024, applicant submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 13.07.2022, which was also rejected vide order dated 06.06.2024.

9. Applicant further pleads that where is no allegation against the applicant of violation of any rule/government

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

instruction in the impugned charge memorandum dated 18.12.2009 to attract violation of Rule 3 (1), (i) (ii) (iii) and 3 (2)

(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others dated 5th April, 2007, Appeal (civil) 1815 of 2007 defined the term 'Misconduct' as a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India & Ors., [1999 (7) SCC 409], has categorically held: "Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information which is vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter. There must exist reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed against the delinquent officer." Applicant has also referred the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772] and State of Assam Vs. Mohan Chanda Choudhury, AIR 1972 SC 2535, Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1999 (7)

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

SCC 409] and B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749] and prays for setting aside the impugned inquiry report dated 16.05.2013, penalty order dated 31.05.2022 and Appellate Authority’s order dated 06.06.2024.

10. Against the contentions made by the applicant in the O.A., respondents have filed their written statement and state that the Charge Memo was issued on 18.12.2009 whereas Inquiry was conducted as per laid down procedure and the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 16.05.2013 after examination-in-chief, cross examination and submission of both, the Presenting Officer’s brief and the statements of defence dated 08.01.2010 and 28.05.2010, in reply to the Charge Memorandum during the course of Regular Hearings. The Penalty Order dated 23.07.2014 was issued against the Charged Officer after due consideration by the Disciplinary Authority of the Inquiry report, representation of the Charged Officer and on merits based on the records. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have passed orders based on Inquiry report and available records. More so, in compliance to the order of this

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Tribunal dated 11.03.2020, an opportunity in the form of Personal Hearing was provided to the Charged Officer on 12.08.2021 to offer reasons for seeking the documents. After going through his submission dated 13.09.2021, the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the said documents mentioned in the applicants letter dated 13.09.2021, do not have any bearing in this case as those documents were not relied upon in the instant Charge Memorandum and charges were not framed on the basis of these statements in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Respondents have admitted that the applicant had received the relied upon documents and acknowledged the same vide acknowledgment receipt dated 30.03.2010.

11. Respondents further contend that all the relied upon documents in the Charge Memorandum have been provided to the Charged Officer. However, after going through Charged Officer’s submission, the Disciplinary Authority informed him that the documents sought by him were not related to the case and passed his order.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

They further reiterates that the basis of the Charge Memorandum in the instant case are that the documents relied upon in the Seizure Case No. 22/CL/IMP/AS/GAU/2006- 07 dated 18.07.2006, and the Adjudicating Authority had observed vide order dated 22.02.2010 “that there was massive system failure which required immediate corrective administrative measure or vigilance actions”. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated accordingly, and a Penalty Order was issued on 23.07.2014 and later, a de-novo Penalty Order was issued on 31.05.2022.

12. Sri S. Nath, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents were heard at length and scrutinised the entire conspectus of the case.

13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel has also placed the following case rulings: i. Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC

760. ii. K.P. Gupta Vs. University of Delhi (2015) 16 SCC 525.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

iii. Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 713. iv. M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88. Aforesaid decisions have been perused carefully and taken on record.

14. We have also perused the inquiry report dated 16.05.2013 submitted by the Inquiry Officer, wherein he mentioned that from the exhibits produced during the inquiry, it transpires that U.B. clearance was done in an irregular manner. As per the respondents, the applicant had contravened Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii) & 3(2)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Rule 3(2)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 specifically states that "Every Govt. Servant holding a Supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Govt. Servants for the time being under his control and Authority" and whereas Rule 3(2)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 states that "No Govt. Servants shall in his performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on him, act

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his Superior."

15. The standard of proof required in a domestic disciplinary inquiry is the preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. While the Adjudication Order dated 22.02.2010 evaluated liabilities under the statutory penal provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the departmental inquiry properly evaluated the applicant’s adherence to standard operational procedures governing cargo baggage management. The documentary exhibits and official registers produced before the Inquiry Officer clearly demonstrate that the unaccompanied baggage clearances were processed in an unauthorized and irregular manner. The applicant signed entries and handled files in a manner that bypassed the mandatory checks required to secure the revenue of the exchequer. The failure to exercise best judgment or flag systematic irregularities, especially when not acting under a documented written direction of a superior, constitutes a clear violation of Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

16. In the matters relating to Disciplinary proceeding, the law has been laid down in the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under:

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”

14. In this case, charges have been established and the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the advice of UPSC and awarded punishment of withholding of 30% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of 02 years vide Order dated 17.11.2017.

15. In view of the judgment cited above, it is clear that Disciplinary Authority has taken in to account the facts and circumstances of the case of the instant applicant and came to conclusion, which is as per Rules. As the charges have been established, we are not interfering with the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

16. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

17. Under the well-settled boundaries of judicial review established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of P. Gunasekaran (supra), this Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with findings of fact in a domestic inquiry where some legal evidence exists. The procedural requirements were followed by forwarding the report and reviewing the applicant's representation. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority is based on concurrent administrative records and does not warrant judicial interference.

18. In view of the above, the instant O.A. does not merit interference and is accordingly dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY