Departmental Adjudication & review - Quest for fairness & trust

The author says that he has not come across any action being taken for 'anti-revenue' orders. I wish to cite an example to the contrary. DRI made out a case of overvaluation in export of garments. The Preventive officer after examination of the goods gave clearance for the goods. Her senior, Superintendent, who was given charge of supervision of three different location, without examination gave the Let Export Order. The statement of the CHA averred that money was to be given to both the Prev. officer and the Supdt. But the Prev. Officer was not named as a noticee in the SCN and was allowed to go scot free with the excuse that the Supdt. gave oral instruction to allow the goods. It is also on record that the Supdt. referred some other cases for further investigation after the Prev. Officer gave clearance. Despite these, when the Addl.Commr. adjudicated the case and quashed the SCN qua the Supdt. DRI went to the extent of writing nasty letters to the Vigilance, etc. for victimising the Addl. Commr. Further, at the instigation of DRI, the appeal was filed. But it was filed under a wrong section and the Commr (Appeals) allowed the filing of a new appeal well past the period allowed for condonation of delay. Also he gave personal hearing to the opposite party before getting the revised appeal and kept it away from the other party. The field is only a minefield and I am surprised in the manner in which retired people eulogise the department.

sureshbala sureshbala 14/08/2014

 

I agree with your comments. Author is defending the senior officers of department for obvious reason which sans reality. I, as practicing Advocate, have come across many cases wherein Adjudicating Authority, during the course of personal hearing, openly tells that they can't go against the SCN of department and that relief would be given by Appellate Authority. Even Appellate Authority is afraid of Vigilance Action and tells same thing during personal hearing.

The case you have referred is a classic example of high handedness of DRI, which commits various mistakes in SCN, but prevails on adjudicating authority, to pass pro-revenue order.

It is high time when officers of DRI and Vigilance Directorate should be held responsible for frivolous and vexatious actions against Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities.

V B Singh 14/08/2014