sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

1993 blasts: HC upholds removal of Customs Inspector
December, 26th 2011

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had reinstated Customs Inspector S M Padwal after giving a finding that his removal from service was not proper.

Padwal was removed after a departmental probe, which held that he was guilty of accepting a bribe of Rs 4.5 lakh from 1993 bomb blast accused Mohammed Dossa and Uttam Potdar for giving safe passage to arms which landed in Dighy coast in nearby Raigad district prior to serial explosions in Mumbai.

The CAT had ruled that Padwal's removal from service was not proper. Being aggrieved, the Union Government filed an appeal in the High Court, which last week quashed the CAT's order. Justice D G Deshmukh and Justice Anoop Mohata found the officer's removal from service "fit and proper".

After the 1993 serial blasts in which several persons were killed, the role of the officer was unearthed following confessions given by Dossa and Potdar during the trial.

Padwal contended that the confessions of the two accused, recorded under TADA(P) Act, were used against him in the departmental inquiry and this was not proper. He said the confessions could only be used in that case under TADA(P) Act and not against him in the departmental inquiry.

Padwal contended that Dossa and Potdar, both 1993 accused, were not called by inquiry officer for examination and hence he did not get an opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Union government, however, contended that Dossa and Potdar were in police custody and hence they could not be produced before the inquiry officer.

Moreover, it argued, the existing laws do not provide that the Indian Evidence Act should be strictly enforced in a departmental inquiry. Hence they could use the confessions recorded under TADA (P) Act against Padwal for the purpose of departmental inquiry, the Centre argued.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Content Management System developers CMS developers Content Management Solutions CMS Solutions CMS India Content Management System India CMS development India Website CMS Website Content Management India Portal CMS India CMS Outsourcing CMS Vendor Complete CMS Custom CMS Services

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions