2011 (5) TMI 919 - Tri - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet.
2. Exoneration in previous proceedings by DRI.
3. Reliance on statements without witnesses in the charge sheet.

Summary:

Issue 1: Inordinate Delay in Issuing the Charge Sheet
The applicant challenged the Memorandum dated 15.1.2010 on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet. The Tribunal observed that the incident related to December 1998, and the show cause notice was given on 23.12.1999. The Commissioner exonerated the applicant under the Customs Act in August 2003, yet no action was taken until the charge sheet was issued on 18.11.2010. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court cases, including *State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh* and *P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D, T.N. Housing Board*, which emphasized that unexplained delays in disciplinary proceedings cause prejudice to the delinquent employee and violate principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents failed to explain the delay in initiating the departmental enquiry.

Issue 2: Exoneration in Previous Proceedings by DRI
The applicant argued that he had already been exonerated in the proceedings initiated by DRI, and therefore, there was no justification to initiate a departmental enquiry on the same matter. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Customs had dropped the proceedings against the applicant in 2003, finding no evidence of connivance or misdemeanor. The Tribunal held that the respondents could have initiated a departmental enquiry immediately after the exoneration but failed to do so.

Issue 3: Reliance on Statements Without Witnesses in the Charge Sheet
The applicant contended that the charge sheet relied on several statements without any witnesses to support them, denying him the right to cross-examine those witnesses. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in *Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.* and *Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain*, which held that statements recorded behind the back of a person cannot be used against them unless the person who made the statement is available for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by the respondents was illegal and prejudicial to the applicant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the charge sheet dated 18.11.2010 on the grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay and allowed the OA with no costs. The same view was reiterated while allowing the OA of Shri S.N. Ojha.