Representation reg AGT-2015

	ALL INDIA CENTRAL EXCISE INSPECTOR’S ASSOCIATION, Surat Cluster Ground Floor, Room No. G-6, New Central Excise Building. (Affiliated to the Confederation of Central Government Employees &Workers) Recognized by Ministry of Finance [vide F.No.B.12017/1/2004-Ad.IV A dated 31.12.07 & 14.1.08] Email Id:-aiceiasuratbranch@gmail.com Blog : www.aiceiasuratcluster.blogspot.in/ FB ID – Aiceia surat branch Phone No. 0261-2461808 / Fax No. 0261-2461808
President  - Kishore K.Upadhyay (Ph.-9328911006)	F.No. AICEIA/Surat/1/2015-16                                  Dated : 23.06-2015 To, The Hon’ble Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara Zone, Vadodara. Respected Sir, Subject : Request to rescind/revise the Establishment Order No. 31/2015             dated 19.06.2015 issued under F.No. II/03-05/CCO/2015 by the             Additional Commissioner (CCO), O/o the Chief Commissioner,             Vadodara Zone – reg.             In continuation to this office letter of even no. dated 22.06.2015 on the captioned matter, vide which anomalies occurred in the Estt. Order No. 31/2015 dated 19.06.2015 were submitted for consideration before your kind honour, we would like to submit few written representations addressed to your good office, from our member officers, who are affected and aggrieved with the said orders as detailed in Annexure ‘A’  attached to this letter. The association has had encounter with many other officers, who are aggrieved/affected with the transfer order, but do not wish to represent in writing since they are not bothered about their postings.             While forwarding the list we would like to make it clear that, we do not recommend any of these cases since, we are fully informed of the fact that transfer/postings are an administrative decision and all the decisions in such matters are left to the judicial discretion of the appropriate authorities. 2.         We would however, respectfully submit before your honour, to kindly consider the above applications and take suo-motu cognisance of the other cases, where deviation from “Transfer Policy” has occurred and kindly revise the Estt. Order No. 31/2015 dated 19.06.2015 accordingly. It is also requested to kindly respond to our request application with due positive considerations without any prejudice. It is also expected to kindly display Due list on the official website of CCO, at least two days before finalising the revised orders, so that any anomalies may be pointed out by the concerned members/association and may be brought to your kind notice. It is also requested that till such revised orders are issued, the Estt. Order No. 31/2015 dated 19.06.2015 may kindly be rescinded in public interest. 3.         It is worth-mentioning here, that during AGT-2015, while calling for willingness to work for Customs formations, anomaly had occurred, which was brought to the notice of your honour, through our letter of even no. dated 05.05.2015. Despite our such letter, the Due list was wrongly prepared, which was again strongly opposed vide our letter dated 21.05.2015, wherein we had even submitted our apprehension that some lower level staff is/are mis-constructing the facts and playing foul, and requested to identify such staff and to take suitable action against them. After our such letter, the ommissions were removed and proper transfer orders were issued for Customs formations. 4.         But in AGT-2015 of Central Excise and Service Tax, even due list was not displayed, which gives us sufficient reasons to believe malafide and foul play. While as per CBEC guidelines, as per Revenue Secretary Office Memorandum F.No. 14014/2/2013-Vig. dated 22.01.2013 and guidelines issued by CVC, “Rotation of officers between sensitive and non-sensitive assignments should be made at regular intervals. Besides facilitating exposure to all areas of work, this also prevents the possibility of officers developing any vested interest, which in turn adversely imparts objective official functioning.”             Ours is a department of revenue wing, where utmost transparency is expected at all levels. Ministerial Cadre is no exception to it. It is therefore, requested that tenure of the ministerial staff of CCO may also be reviewed and those who have completed a longer tenure at a place, should invariably be transferred/rotated in the public interest to ensure transparency. 5.         Our association would like to make it clear that we are not opposed to any transfers made in the course of an administrative exigencies or public interest and neither have we challenged the powers and discretion of the authority. What we demand is a transparent, reasoned and an explicit order, based on the Transfer Policy. Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India & Anr, 1993 (1) SCC 148, has held that apart from legal and actual malafides, deletion of certain persons from the list and picking others is based on extraneous matters by adoption of pick and choose method, which cannot stand scrutiny of law. 6.         While asserting our request to revise the transfer orders in consonance with the Transfer Policy, we would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A.No.579/2006 dated 04.05.2006 in the case of Shri T Kujur Vs. UOI and others, wherein while allowing the OA, Hon’ble Tribunal at Para 18 had held as under : “18.            Laying down guidelines is an empty formality. It is to be adhered to when such an occasion arises. Dehors the guidelines any action taken cannot be stand scrutiny of law. Though personal malafides may not be apparent or established by the applicant, yet inaction of the respondents where the policy guidelines, by passage of time, have assumed a role of a statutory rule, for want of any statutory rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, these guidelines have sanctity of law. Having not been followed, the transfer cannot be countenanced in law.” 7.         We would also like to rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.1744/2006 dated 05.10.2006, wherein it was held at Para 15 that, 15. If the transfer guidelines are to be ignored and the statutory rules are to be adhered to, then there would be an absolute discretion to be vested in the administrative authorities where in the guise of All India transfer liability, the transfers would not be regulated and controlled in any manner. Accordingly, the guidelines in the form of subordinate legislation regulate the transfer as without any limits, norms and rules and unguided principle would make a jungle raj and an absolute discretion to the administrative authorities, which is not envisaged under rule of law, as public functionaries when discharge administrative duties, their orders are to be, on discretion, on judicious, i.e., the exercise of discretion should be judicious in the circumstances. 8.         Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while affirming two decisions of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide a common order passed on 23.3.2005 in WP (C) No.1361-62/2005, where the Tribunal held the transfer orders illegal and in violation of the transfer policy, disposed of the petitions with direction to the respondents to consider the options exercised in accordance with law. 9.         Article 141 of the Constitution embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. In a Constitution Bench Judgment of Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Raghubir Singh (1989)2-SCC-754, Chief Justice of India, Sh. Pathak observed as under :  “The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a constanty and consistence in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law, besides provides assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decision of a court. 10.       In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully submitted to your kind honour to kindly consider our representation in positive light, in view of the binding judicial precedents to avoid any administrative inconvenience and avoidable litigations, due to intervention of Hon’ble Courts in an administrative issue. 11.       With hope for justice. Thanking you in anticipation. With regards.                                                             Yours faithfully,                         (Prashant Mishra)                                 (M.S. Prabhat)             Vice-President, AICEIA, Surat    General Secretary, AICEIA, Surat Encl : As above (2 leaves). Copy to : 1. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat-I/II/Bharuch/Audit-II and Appeals-II 2. The President, AICEIA.
General Secretary – Maya Shanker Prabhat                        (Ph.-9925260545)
Vice President, Surat Waseem Ahmad (Ph-9978575997)
Vice President, Bharuch Prashant K. Mishra (Ph.-8000659375)
Joint Secretary, Surat Badram Meena (Ph.-9537565566)
Joint Secretary, Bharuch Rajeev Kumar (Ph.-8000078533)
Liaison Secretary, Manohar Kumar
Treasurer, Siddharth Tiwari
Office Secretary, Nishant Neeraj

ANNEXURE-A

LIST OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED AGAINST AGT-2015 OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, VADODARA ZONE, VADODARA.

S.No.	Name of Inspector	Comm’te	Gist of representation	Clause of Transfer Policy claimed to having been violated
1.	Sh. Bharat Kumar Sharma	Surat-I	Comm’te not changed even after completion of more than 05 years in one Commissionerate.	Para 2
2.	Sh. Hariom Meena	Surat-II	Transfer order mentions “On cost consideration”  whereas he did never request for the place, where he is transferred.	Para 5.3
3.	Sh. Mitesh T. Kothiwala	Surat-II	Transferred out before completion of 3 years in a Commissionerate, that too in Surat-I, where he has already worked for 5 years.	Para 2
4.	Sh. Rohan Arora	Surat Customs	Transferred out from the Cluster before completion of 9 years. He is also a Physically Challenged Person.	Para 2
5.	Sh. Aditya Kumar	Surat-I	Comm’te not changed even after completion of more than 04 years in one Commissionerate.	Para 2
6.	Sh. Goutam Govinda	Surat-I	Comm’te not changed even after completion of more than 04 years in one Commissionerate.	Para 2
7.	Sh. Siddhartha Tiwari	Surat-I	Comm’te not changed even after completion of more than 04 years in one Commissionerate.	Para 2
8.	Sh. Ajoy Prasad	Bharuch	Transferred out before completion of tenure of one Cluster/ Commissionerate, or even 2 years.	Para 5.3
9.	Sh. Gopal Lal	Surat-I	Comm’te not changed even after completion of more than 05 years in one Commissionerate.	Para 2
10	Sh. Hariom	Surat-I	Comm’te not changed even after completion of more than 04 years in one Commissionerate.	Para 2
11	Sh. M.S. Prabhat	Appeals-II	Comm’te not changed even after completion of tenure. Not given opportunity to work in Audit/Surat-I, having compulsory/mandatory postings despite being in the line of promotion in next couple of years, as per expected vacancy position.	Para 4.4 r/w Para 7.1
Note : There are many officers (Inspectors), who have been transferred/retained in deviation of policy, even without any on cost request or representations.