CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000380
Dated, the 30th June, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Leslie Guha
Respondents : Central Excise Department
This matter came up for hearing on 25.06.2009 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 25.05.2009. Both parties were present.
2. The RTI-application corresponding to this second-appeal was filed
by the appellant on 14.06.2007 comprising the following nine queries:-
“1. The subject case against New Tobacco was initiated in
1996, but the Departmental Proceedings against Sri Guha
was initiated in April 2001. Why such delay occurred?
2. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report in April 2003 that
found ‘Articles of Charge – Not proved’ against Sri Guha
and it was communicated in June 2003 by the Disciplinary
Authority i.e. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata II,
without any comment.
Please inform whether the IO Report was accepted or
rejected in April-June 2003 by the Disciplinary
Authority. If it was disagreed at that time, please
provide a copy of the relevant portion of the Note Sheet
in this regard.
3. In September 2004, a communication was sent to Sri Guha
by the Disciplinary Authority intimating ‘Imposition of
Major Penalty’ as per CVC’s 2nd Stage Advice on the basis of
IO Report that held charges not proved. In June 2006
Disciplinary Authority proposed to disagree with the
findings of the IO Report (April 2003).
Is there any relation between the September 2004 letter
and June 2006 letter? If yes, how these two were
related?
4. Under what law major penalty can be imposed without
proof of any charge?
5. Sri Guha submitted a reply to the June 2006 letter on 26
June 2006. What is the fate of that reply?
AT-30062009-13.doc
Page 1 of 3
6. What are the stage-wise time frames provided for
disposal of disciplinary proceedings? Whether these
time frames were maintained in case of Sri Guha?
7. What is the current status of the New Tobacco Company
Ltd., Agarpara for which departmental proceedings was
lodged?
8. Sri Guha’s first ACP was due in October 2000 and the
Chargesheet was issued in April 2001. Even then why ACP
benefits were not given to him?
9. Whether the disciplinary authority is aware that Sri
Guha is a Pensioner and have not been getting my full
pension benefits?
If yes, how does he propose to provide solace to Sri
Guha and his family?”
3. Response was furnished to the appellant by CPIO on 09.07.2007
and by the Appellate Authority on 17.08.2007. This second-appeal filed
by appellant was received in the Commission on 13.04.2009.
4. There appears to be considerable delay in the appellant filing the
second-appeal. But having taken it on file, it is decided to continue the
proceeding for a decision.
5. Appellant stated during the hearing that presently his request for
information was only one, which was, the reason for delay of six years
in taking a decision in an enquiry which was initiated against the
appellant through a departmental proceeding in April, 2001. Appellant
meanwhile retired on 28.02.2003, but the proceeding against him
remained inconclusive.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the case of
this appellant was pending before the Central Board of Excise and
Customs (CBEC) since 31.07.2006. On a query from the Board, further
information was furnished by Central Excise Commissionerate, Kolkata-II
on 12.04.2007. The orders of the CBEC were awaited.
Decision:
7. CPIO, CBEC, Md.Akhtarul Hanif, Under Secretary is hereby
directed to furnish a reply to the appellant after obtaining it from the
officer who held the requisite information, within three weeks of the
receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission which must
AT-30062009-13.doc
Page 2 of 3
reach the Commission within one week of the reply furnished to the
appellant on behalf of CBEC.
8. Appeal disposal of with these directions.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-30062009-13.doc
Page 3 of 3