UNION OF INDIA vs SHRI.G.RAMESH BHATT

- 1 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO.3146/2018 (S-CAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.13495/2015 (S-CAT) AND
WRIT PETITION NO.13496/2015 (S-CAT)

IN WP NO. 3146/2018

BETWEEN:

1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
AND CUSTOMS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE,
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MR. NARAYANASWAMY G.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.)

AND:

SRI SURESH B BADAS
S/O LATE BASAVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX,
BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N G PHADKE, ADV.)












Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
DATED 09.10.2017 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00065/2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.


IN WP NO. 13495/2015

BETWEEN:

1. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
& SERVICE TAX
MANGALORE COMMISSIONERATE
TH
7 FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE
BUNT’S HOSTEL ROAD
MANGALORE-3.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.)

AND:

SHRI B N SUDHEENDRA
INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXICSE
UDUPI CENTRAL EXCISE &
SERVICE TAX DIVISION
VISHNUPRIYA BUILDING,
L B S ROAD, AJJARKAD
UDUPI-576101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N G PHADKE, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 19.06.2014 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN O.A.NO.228/2014
AT ANN-A AND ETC.

- 3 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015



IN WP NO. 13496/2015

BETWEEN:

1. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
& SERVICE TAX
MANGALORE COMMISSIONERATE
TH
7 FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE
BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD
MANGALORE-3.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.)

AND:

SHRI.G.RAMESH BHATT
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE
O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXICSE
UDUPI CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX DIVISION
VISHNUPRIYA BUIDLING,
L B S ROAD, AJJARKAD
UDUPI-576101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N G PHADKE, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 19.6.2014 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN O.A. NO.227/2014
AT ANN-A AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 24.10.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

- 4 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The above batch of writ petitions are taken up for
hearing and disposed of by this common order since the
impugned order relates to quashing of articles of charge
issued to the respondents herein on the same facts and on
the same incident and all the writ petitions raise the same
question as to articles of charge in the facts and
circumstances could have been quashed at the threshold.

2. In W.P.No.13495/2015, the Union by Central
Board of Excise and Customs is before this Court
aggrieved by order dated 19.06.2014 in O.A.No.228/2014
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the CAT’) quashing charge
memorandum dated 22.11.2013. In W.P.No.13496/2015,
the Union of India by Central Board of Excise and Customs
and Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax are
before this Court aggrieved by order dated 19.06.2014 in
O.A.No.227/2014 passed by the CAT quashing charge

- 5 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


memorandum dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-A1) issued to
respondent therein. In W.P.No.3146/2018, the petitioner –
Union of India by Central Board of Excise and Customs and
the Commissioner of Central Tax are before this Court
aggrieved by order dated 09.10.2017 in
O.A.No.170/00065/2017 passed by the CAT, quashing
articles of charge dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-A2).

3. At the relevant point of time, respondents in
W.P.No.3146/2018 and W.P.No.13496/2015 were working
as Superintendent of Central Excise/Superintendent of
Customs, whereas respondent in W.P.No.13495/2015 was
working as Inspector of Central Excise.

4. All the respondents in the above three writ
petitions were issued with charge memorandum dated
22.11.2013 alleging similar or identical charge based on
the same incident i.e., failure to notice wrong claim of
exemption and failure to notice and assess the goods at
the applicable rate of duty which were cleared to domestic
tariff area resulting in financial accommodation to the

- 6 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


assessee. The said charge memorandum dated
22.11.2013 was the subject matter of O.As., before the
CAT. Before the CAT, the respondents urged several
grounds including the ground that determination of duty is
a quasi judicial function. The CAT under impugned orders
quashed the charge memorandum dated 22.11.2013 on
the ground that charge not having any factual foundation
at all and also holding that Government of India will pay
duty and another wing of Government will received duty, if
at all it is to be payable. Aggrieved by the quashing of
charge memorandum dated 22.11.2013 in all the three
O.As, the petitioners – Union of India and its authorities
are before this Court in the above batch of writ petitions.

5. Heard learned Central Government Counsel
Sri.Aravind V. Chavan for petitioners/Union of India and its
Officers and learned counsel Sri.N.G.Phadke for
respondents in all the writ petitions. Perused the entire
writ petition papers.

- 7 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


6. Learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan for
petitioners would submit that the respondents granted
exemption which were not otherwise available for the tugs
cleared by Mrs.Temba Shipyards Limited (for short, ‘TSL’).
The first tug was cleared under ex-bond bill of entry
No.6/2008 dated 11.09.2008 by the respondent in
W.P.No.13496/2015 and the second tug was cleared under
ex-bond bill of entry No.18/2009-10 dated 29.07.2009 by
petitioners in W.P.No.13495/2015 as well as petitioner in
W.P.No.3146/2018. It is submitted that the tugs were
cleared at Nil rate of duty as claimed by the TSL under
exemption notification No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002
without examining as to whether the said exemption
notification would apply to the tugs imported by the TSL.
It is further submitted that the exemption Notification
No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 only exempted raw
materials and parts for used in the manufacture of goods
and not the finished goods (Tugs).

- 8 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


7. Learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan would
submit that no interpretation was needed to the
exemption Notification No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002. The
respondents were only required to examine whether goods
imported under bills of entry referred to above were
finished goods or raw materials or parts used for
manufacture. Admittedly, the TSL had imported mid-size
Boat which had no exemption. Therefore, it is submitted
that enquiry was initiated to find out whether the
respondents committed any misconduct in applying the
exemption notification. It is submitted that it is not exactly
the assessment of duty and it is application of exemption
notification.

8. Learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan would
submit that after applying proper exemption notification if
there is wrong assessment, it may not amount to
misconduct. However, he submits that in the instant case,
the respondents applied exemption notification wrongly,

- 9 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


which was available for raw material to import of finished
goods.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners-Revenue would
submit that the CAT could not have at the initial stage
interfere with the memorandum of charge and it was for
the Enquiry Officer based on the material to be placed on
record to give a finding as to whether the respondents
applied proper exemption notification or whether it would
amount to misconduct or not in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for petitioners-
Revenue would submit that the CAT could not function as
Enquiry Officer at the initial stage to come to the
conclusion that there cannot be any central excise payable
at all at that point of time as excise duty or import duty
payable by the private bonded warehouse had already
been paid and accounted for. Learned counsel for
petitioners-Revenue would submit that the finding of the
CAT would come in the way of CESTAT deciding the appeal
of the TSL where it has questioned the demand of duty

- 10 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


and penalty. Thus, learned counsel for petitioners-Revenue
would pray for allowing the writ petitions and seeks for a
direction to the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry
within a time bound manner.

10. Learned counsel Sri.N.G.Phadke for
respondents in all the above writ petitions would submit
that wrong application of exemption notice or wrong
assessment of duty would not amount to misconduct,
therefore, the CAT is justified in quashing the charge
memorandum dated 22.11.2013. Further, learned counsel
for respondents would submit that there is no allegation of
corruption or loss caused to the Revenue or there is no
allegation that wrong exemption notification is applied for
gain. Learned counsel would also submit that
determination of duty is a quasi judicial function. As such,
no enquiry against respondents would be maintainable.
Further, learned counsel for respondents would submit
that TSL is a 100% export oriented unit and it was entitled
for exemption from duty. Learned counsel for respondents

- 11 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


would further submit that the duty and penalty demanded
against TSL was challenged and the said issue is before
the CESTAT. Further, it is stated that the CESTAT in its
stay order dated 10.07.2012 found the demand of duty
against TSL prima facie not justified. Learned counsel for
the respondents would contend that when the CESTAT has
given a prima facie finding that the demand of duty
against TSL is not justified in its interim order, the
initiation of enquiry against respondents is unreasonable.

11. Learned counsel for respondents would submit
that the petitioners failed to provide documents sought by
the respondents for their defence. Denial of necessary
documents has resulted in denial of proper opportunity to
defend themselves. Learned counsel has placed reliance
on the decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his
contentions, which would be dealt with at a later stage.

12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record,
the only point which falls for consideration is as to,

- 12 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


Whether the CAT was justified in
interfering and quashing the charge
memorandum dated 22.11.2013 in all the above
three writ petitions at the threshold?

13. Answer to the above point would be in the
negative for the following reasons:
The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions made
it clear that no interference could be made with the charge
memorandum/articles of charge at the threshold, unless it
is established that the authority which issued the articles
of charge or charge memorandum is incompetent
authority or is issued with malafide intention or it is
established that there is no cause of action at all for
initiation of enquiry.

14. In UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS.
KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA [(2006) 12 SCC 28] , the
Hon'ble Apex Court was considering whether the High
Court was justified in quashing charge memo at the initial
stage and at paragraphs 13 to 16, has held as follows:

- 13 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


“ 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions
of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh
Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC
331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
[(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR
2004 SC 1467] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr.,
Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639] , State of U.P. v.
Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3
ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition
should not be entertained against a mere show-
cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage
the writ petition may be held to be premature. A
mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not
give rise to any cause of action, because it does not
amount to an adverse order which affects the rights
of any party unless the same has been issued by a
person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite
possible that after considering the reply to the
show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the
authority concerned may drop the proceedings
and/or hold that the charges are not established. It
is well settled that a writ petition lies when some
right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause
notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of
anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some

- 14 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party
is passed, that the said party can be said to have
any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary
jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article
226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing
a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and
exceptional cases the High Court can quash a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to
be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other
reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the
High Court should not interfere in such a matter.”


15. In SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND
OTHERS VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA [(2012) 11
SCC 565] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the
law does not permit quashing of charge sheet in a routine
manner in a departmental proceedings. The relevant
portions at paragraphs 8, 10 to 12 reads as follows:
“ 8. The law does not permit quashing of
charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the
delinquent employee has any grievance in respect
of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing

- 15 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


a representation and wait for the decision of the
disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-
sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the
ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings,
the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet
after considering the gravity of the charge and all
relevant factors involved in the case weighing all
the facts both for and against the delinquent
employee and must reach the conclusion which is
just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide State of
M.P. v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1991 SCC
(L&S) 638 : (1991) 16 ATC 514] , State of Punjab
v. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 541 : (1995) 29 ATC 546] , Registrar,
Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey [(1995) 3
SCC 134 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 648 : (1995) 29 ATC
538] , Union of India v. Ashok Kacker [1995 Supp
(1) SCC 180 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 374 : (1995) 29
ATC 145] , Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L.
Srinivasan [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC (L&S)
686 : (1996) 33 ATC 745] , State of A.P. v. N.
Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
1044 : AIR 1998 SC 1833] , Food Corporation of
India v. V.P. Bhatia [(1998) 9 SCC 131 : 1998 SCC
(L&S) 466] , Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan [1999
SCC (L&S) 646] , M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India
[(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 : AIR
2006 SC 3475] , P.D. Agrawal v. SBI [(2006) 8 SCC

- 16 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


776 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] and Govt. of A.P. v.
V. Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 49 : (2009) 1
SCC (L&S) 440] .)

10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie
against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the
reason that it does not give rise to any cause of
action. It does not amount to an adverse order
which affects the right of any party unless the same
has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when
some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-
sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is
only when a final order imposing the punishment or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it
may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary
proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by
the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 :
AIR 1987 SC 943] , Bihar State Housing Board v.
Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327] ,
Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR
2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] and Union of India
v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] .)

- 17 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari
Misra [(2010) 13 SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
380] (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held
that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior
to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that
the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the
reason that to determine correctness or truth of the
charge is the function of the disciplinary authority.
(See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh [(1994)
3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 : (1994) 27 ATC
200] .)

12. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet
cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge
as it does not adversely affect the rights of the
delinquent unless it is established that the same
has been issued by an authority not competent to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the
disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be
quashed at an initial stage as it would be a
premature stage to deal with the issues.
Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the
grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a
belated stage or could not be concluded in a
reasonable period unless the delay creates
prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of
alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken
into consideration while quashing the proceedings.”

- 18 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015



16. In the light of the above principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contentions of the parties in
the instant petitions shall have to be appreciated. It is not
in dispute that at the relevant point of time of clearance of
bill of entry No.6/2008 as well as bill of entry No.18/2009-
10, the respondents were working as Superintendents of
Customs and Inspector of Customs. The respondents
cleared the bills of entry applying exemption notification
No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 which was available for raw
materials and parts for use in the manufacture of goods.
However, the TSL had imported the finished goods (Tugs).
The allegations against the respondents are that they were
the officers who had cleared the goods under the above
referred bill of entry by applying a wrong exemption
notification. There is difference between application of
exemption notification to goods imported and assessment
of the duty thereafter. Moreover, the duty and penalty
demanded against the TSL has not attained finality and in
fact, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the demand of

- 19 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


duty and penalty, which is questioned before the CESTAT
by TSL. Though there is interim order in favour of TSL
staying the demand, it is submitted during the course of
hearing by both the learned counsels that the appeal is
still pending before the CESTAT and is yet to attain
finality. Furthermore, CAT ought not to have ventured to
give a finding as to TSL is a 100% EOU or otherwise, in
the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
CAT could not have gone into the merits of the charge and
could not have given a finding that there is no loss caused
by coming to the conclusion that Government of India will
pay duty and another wing of Government will receive
duty, if at all it is to be payable. The CAT having found
“even in the worst, it can be only alleged that applicant
may have made a mistake” could not have quashed the
articles of charge at the threshold. Moreover, finding of
the CAT on the duty demanded/payable or finding that no
loss caused would have bearing on the appeal pending

- 20 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


before the CESTAT. Therefore, the CAT ought not to have
gone into merits of the charge.

18. However, whether the act of the respondents
would amount to misconduct or not would depend on the
material that would be produced by the Disciplinary
Authority. As contended by learned counsel for the
respondents, it is not assessment of duty. It involved
application of proper notification either for exemption of
duty or to determine duty. It is for the Enquiry Officer to
find out as to whether the exemption notification was
wrongly applied or whether it was intentionally applied
being aware of goods imported is finished goods i.e., Mid-
size Boat. Learned counsel for respondents had contended
that there is no allegation of corruption or loss caused.
However, on going through the charge memorandum
dated 22.11.2013, we are of the opinion that it is for the
Enquiry Officer to find out whether the respondents have
caused loss by applying wrong exemption notification.

- 21 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


19. In W.P.No.3146/2018, the Enquiry Officer had
conducted enquiry and had submitted enquiry report dated
06.04.2016 (Annexure-A17) against petitioner. At that
stage, the petitioner was before CAT alleging that there
was no proper opportunity provided during the course of
enquiry and also no documents sought for defence were
supplied. Since this Court has come to the conclusion in
respect of other petitioners that CAT could not have
interfered with the charge memorandum dated
22.11.2013, we are of the considered view that in the
present writ petition also de nova enquiry could be
concluded from the stage of recording evidence after
providing the documents sought for by the respondent or
providing an opportunity to the respondent to go through
the charge sheeted documents or any other document on
which the Disciplinary Authority places reliance.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents had placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS [(1999) 7 SCC 409] to contend that no

- 22 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


departmental enquiry would be maintainable on the
allegation of failure to exercise quasi judicial power
properly. There is no doubt with regard to the said principle.
However, the same would have no application to the facts of
the present case, since in the instant case, it is not purely
assessment of duty and penalty. It is wrong application of
exemption notification. Whether the respondents applied
wrong exemption notification intentionally for any gain is the
question. The question of assessment would be thereafter.

21. Learned counsel for the respondents placed
reliance on various decisions with regard to determination
of duty under the Customs Act. However, determining duty
is not the issue in the present writ petitions and the said
question is pending before the CESTAT. Therefore, those
decisions would not assist the respondents in any manner.

22. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the
considered opinion that the CAT committed grave error in
quashing the charge memorandum dated 22.11.2013 at
the initial stage. Hence, the following:

- 23 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


ORDER
a) Writ petition Nos.3146/2018,
W.P.No.13495/2015 and
W.P.No.13496/2015 are allowed and
order dated 09.10.2017 in
O.A.No.170/00065/2017, order dated
19.06.2014 in O.A.No.228/2014 and order
dated 19.06.2014 in O.A.No.227/2014 are
set aside.

b) In W.P.No.13495/2015 and
W.P.No.13496/2015, the petitioners shall
proceed with the enquiry on the charge
memorandum dated 22.11.2013 and
complete the enquiry within six months
from the date of uploading the order on
the Website of the High Court.

c) In W.P.No.3146/2018, the petitioners
shall commence de-nova enquiry from the
stage of recording evidence after
providing documents sought for by the
respondent for his defence or providing
sufficient opportunity to inspect the
charge sheeted documents or documents
on which the Disciplinary Authority places

- 24 -
WP No. 3146 of 2018
C/W WP No. 13495 of 2015
WP No. 13496 of 2015


reliance and shall complete the enquiry
within six months from the date of
uploading the order on the Website of
High Court.


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE


NC
CT:bms