K K Das I have perused the file.

The main Article of Charge against Shri K K Das was that while working as collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, he passed two different orders in respect of the same appeal. The first order was passed rejecting the appeal and thereby denying concessional duty on imported goods. However, later on, stating that the file was missing, he passed another order allowing the appeal of the party in the form of combined order pertaining to the same party on the identical issue. The charge was that he deliberately passed two contradictory orders with a view to give undue advantage to a private party. The IO held the charges proved, and a penalty order dated 23.8.2006 was passed, imposing a penalty of 50% cut in the Respondents monthly pension. The CAT, by its order dated 30.9.2010 in OA 649/2007, specifically pointed at a number of procedural lapses in the investigation culminating into the penalty order. It inter alia held that there is a deficiency in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and non-consideration of aspects relating to the manner of passing of the Order. It further held that the delay, as also the non-production of a large number of defence documents and witnesses had prejudiced the case against the officer, and quashed the penalty order. On appeal, the High Court upheld the findings of CAT, observing that it was an admitted position that in spite of demands made by the Respondent no 1, all relevant documents were not disclosed in the inquiry. Further, the Respondent called for certain persons as his witnesses, but the IO disallowed them. In my opinion, the order of the CAT, as also of the High Court, based on concurrent findings, appears to be well reasoned. It is a fact that the preliminary inquiry took nearly five years. Besides, the CAT was concerned with the denial of adequate opportunity to the Respondent to defend himself due to denial of a large number of documents and witnesses sought to be relied upon by him to prove his innocence, which has been found by the High Court to be pertinent. Since the decision making process is flawed and denial of the principles of natural justice is writ large, no useful purpose will be served in agitating the matter before the Honble Supreme Court.

In view of the above, SLP is not advised.