CAT Revokes Customs Appraiser’s Suspension Over Unexplained Unequal Treatment, While Disciplinary Inquiry Continues

The applicant, an Appraiser in the Customs Department, challenged a charge memorandum dated 10 March 2026 and a suspension order dated 2 March 2026.

The charges concerned alleged failures in verifying mandatory documents and regulatory compliance, classification and clearance of imported goods, and reassessment without the required approval.

The applicant argued, among other things, that assessment had been undertaken by the competent Assessment Group and that the charge memorandum was unsupported and procedurally defective.

The respondents maintained that the charges concerned specific omissions within the applicant’s duties and should be examined in a departmental inquiry.

The applicant sought to have both the charge memorandum and suspension order set aside.

Under Union of India v. Upendra Singh, a court or tribunal may interfere with a charge memorandum where the charges and imputations disclose no misconduct or are contrary to law, but it must not determine the truth of the allegations at that stage.

Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana establishes that interference with a charge memorandum is ordinarily exceptional, including where the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction or another recognised ground for review is established.

Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India holds that a mere error of law in quasi-judicial work does not, without more, constitute misconduct; disciplinary proceedings require a reasonable basis and cannot rest on vague allegations or suspicion alone.

The Tribunal also relied on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank for the principle that findings of misconduct must rest on evidence rather than conjecture.

Disciplinary proceedings must comply with applicable rules and afford a meaningful opportunity to defend.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s assertion that another Assessment Group performed the final assessment was relevant but did not, by itself, absolve him of responsibility for any examination-related or other duties specifically attributable to him.

The allegations of failure to verify requirements and respond to examination findings could be examined in an inquiry; deciding their truth at the charge-memorandum stage would improperly prejudge the disciplinary process.

The Tribunal therefore left the charge memorandum in place, while directing that the applicant receive a fair opportunity and access to the relied-upon documents.

On suspension, the respondents provided no satisfactory justification for suspending the applicant when other officers with allegedly identical charge memoranda had not been suspended; the Tribunal considered the differential treatment discriminatory and found revocation warranted.

It revoked the suspension order and directed that the applicant be posted to a non-sensitive post.

The applicant was directed to cooperate with the inquiry; the respondents’ pending application to delete the first and second respondents was dismissed.

There was no order as to costs.