Customs Commissioner charged with false TA Claim!
CAN you believe that a Senior officer of the rank of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise will cheat the government by submitting false TA Claims? In this sordid story, that was what exactly alleged.
This V ictimised O fficer – let's call him VO was cleared for promotion as Chief Commissioner in 2007 but between the providential cup and the lip, somebody slipped in. Somebody was determined that he should not get that promotion. So they found some loopholes in his Transfer TA Claims of 2004 and 2005. The amounts involved were Rs. 4700 in connection with a foreign trip and Rs. 38,425 in connection with his transfer. He received an advance of TA of Rs. 38,425 on 14.11.2005 and because he could not transfer his household goods, he returned the money to the government on 14.12.2005 – so for a full month he had illegal possession of the princely amount of Rs. 38,425. He was charged with misusing his official position and showing undue favour to himself. The basis of the charge sheet was a pseudonymous complaint received in the Department on 7.7.2005 alleging irregularities on the part of our VO. The Charge Memo was issued on 10.5.2007 – two years after the pseudonymous complaint. The DPC for promotion as Chief Commissioner was held on 21.3.2007. VO was considered and found fit for promotion. The ACC also approved this promotion. As on that date, there was nothing against VO as no charge memo was issued by that time. In normal course, such promotion should have been given effect to. However, after serving the charge memo on 10.5.2007, the result of the DPC was placed in Deemed Seal Cover.
VO without replying to the Charge Memo approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT allowed the Application and set aside the memo of charges dated 10.5.2007. The Tribunal, while allowing the OA, also directed the petitioners to open the sealed cover and give effect thereto.
But somebody who had initiated this campaign would not lie low. The Government filed a writ petition before the High Court. By order dated 31.7.2008 this writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file a review application. The Tribunal dismissed the review application. The Revenue was determined that VO should not get his promotion and they again took the matter to the High Court.
The High Court gave its verdict last month and observed, “For two years the respondent is struggling to get his promotion. The promotion, otherwise rightly earned by him, is denied to him by issuing charge sheet at this stage trying to somehow implicate the respondent with alleged irregularities which do not even constitute “misconduct”.
The High Court further observed, “action against the respondent was initiated on the basis of a pseudonymous complaint; the alleged allegations, when seen in the backdrop of the record and explanation, do not constitute misconduct.; on the basis of such pseudonymous complaint, charge sheet came to be issued only in May 2007, that too when the respondent had already been cleared for promotion as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise by the DPC , which was even approved by the ACC. These factors, taken independently, might not have been serious. However, cumulative effect of all these aspects gives an indication that the issuance of charge sheet upon the respondent at this juncture was not a bona fide move on the part of the petitioners.”
The High Court's order came on 10 th July, 2009 – it is more than a month now and there is no news of VO being promoted as Chief Commissioner. Maybe the Government is planning to go in appeal to the Supreme Court.
This is the problem with dwarfs occupying high positions. Based on a pseudonymous complaint and that too on a stupid TA Claim of about Rs. 43,000, somebody can be denied a promotion to the high rank of Chief Commissioner! Obviously somebody in the top echelons of the bureaucratic hierarchy is responsible for this anarchy. The High Court has said that the charge sheet was not a bona fide move. Shouldn't this high functionary who took the decision to charge sheet VO be punished?
If you can do this to a Chief Commissioner, we shudder to imagine what they can do to a minor minion. Our VO must have ruffled some feathers somewhere and he is paying the price now. Our V ictimised O fficer – VO will ultimately get his promotion and may even join the Board, but imagine his humiliation and trauma, especially when he sees many of his juniors as Chief Commissioners.
One lesson that emerges is, all officers should realise, however haughty and powerful they are – there is still somebody higher who can really mess up their career. They should keep this in mind when they try to screw their subordinates. Do unto others as what you would have them do unto you.
Everything seems to be fair in love, war, promotions and postings. Brother will kill brother.
We hope the Government would open that deemed (damned) sealed cover and promote our VO without wasting further time and taxpayers' money to fight out this ridiculous legal battle in the Apex Court.