CBEC reacts to Casual and Perfunctory manner of Commissioner (A) - But what is pre-functory ?
IN DDT 2806, we reported on 14.3.2016, the CESTAT Order in the Do Best Infoway case 2016-TIOL-604-CESTAT-MAD wherein the CESTAT had pointed out the callous way in which a Commissioner (Appeals) dealt with a case. The Tribunal noted that the entire action of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to law and there is no disposal of appeal as yet on his record.If this is the manner an appellate authority acts, and his undated order comes for judicial review, it is difficult to appreciate the very existence of the impugned order itself as to whether that has seen the light of the day.
The Tribunal told the CBEC:
1. appropriate guideline may be issued to the quasi Judicial Authorities in administrative justice system to discharge their duties publicly.
2. Also the manner how order sheet of public record shall be maintained by such authority while they discharge public duty may be advised.
The CBEC has reacted within a month. In a letter to the Chief Commissioners, CBEC informs:
1. The decision of the CESTAT as noted above points out severe lacunae in the functioning of quasi judicial and appellate authorities in the department. Poor maintenance of records inter alia in the discharge of the functions of these authorities has been a cause of concern. In this case CESTAT has found lacunae not only in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), but has also pointed to the deficiencies noted by them in performance of the assigned public duties. From the perusal of note sheet reproduced in the order of the CESTAT it is evident that the said Commissioner (Appeal) was performing his assigned public functions in a pre-functory and casual manner.
2. Justice has not only to be done but seem to have been done in the performance of quasi judicial functions.
3. if the quasi judicial authority has to grant the personal hearing on the date and time decided by him while deciding the case, then that authority alone can grant the said personal hearing on that date and time. The record of such hearing should be essential part of the record of the case under the signature of the said authority in person.
4. The quasi judicial orders subject to judicial review have to be necessarily a speaking orders recording every fact and reason leading to the final decision in the matter.
The Board wants the Chief Commissioners to cause sample verification of records of the adjudication and appellate proceedings from time to time to time to ensure compliance with these instructions.
But does the Board know what the meaning of pre-functory is? Perhaps what they mean is perfunctory. Now who has performed in a perfunctory manner? The Commissioner or the Board? That is why I have been suggesting that the Board should hire an English teacher.
CBEC Instruction in F No 390/CESTAT/24/2016-JC., Dated: April 13, 2016