2016 (2) TMI 1042 - HC - Customs

Contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Appraiser has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant - Held that - although the original/legible copies of the shipping bills were not made available to the petitioner during the inquiry proceedings, the same will not be fatal considering that he had himself admitted to have countersigned the 9 shipping bills under out of charge in his statement recorded under 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover, the relevance of original shipping bills/legible copies of the shipping bills was to establish description of goods and the Examination Report was countersigned by the petitioner who had also given the Let Export Order (LEO), the evidentiary value of these documents cannot be denied now by the petitioner merely on the ground that the original copies of shipping bills were not available during the course of the inquiry especially when he had himself admitted to have countersigned the Examination Report. The Tribunal has rightly held that there is sufficient material before the Disciplinary Authority to reach the conclusion that Charge is proved and to impose the punishment - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations of failure to supervise examination of goods and countersigning Examination Report.
2. Disagreement between Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.
3. Imposition of penalty on the petitioner.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.
5. Evidentiary value of petitioner's admission and absence of original shipping bills.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, an Appraiser, was accused of failing to supervise the examination of goods and countersigning the Examination Report without physically examining the goods, leading to discrepancies in quantity and quality. The charge against the petitioner was that he exhibited lack of devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Enquiry Officer initially found the charges not established, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and upheld the charge of failure to verify the correctness of goods.

2. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction in the petitioner's pay by 2 stages for one year, starting from a specified date. The petitioner appealed the decision, but the Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. The court observed that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend his case at all stages of the disciplinary proceedings. The principles of natural justice were deemed to have been observed, and no procedural flaws or violations of statutory rules were identified. The court noted that the petitioner had admitted to countersigning the Examination Reports and providing Let Export Orders, which were considered as evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.

4. The petitioner argued that the original shipping bills were not produced during the disciplinary proceedings, which he claimed was fatal. However, the court held that the absence of original shipping bills did not invalidate the case, as the petitioner's admission to countersigning the bills and providing Let Export Orders carried evidentiary value. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that there was sufficient material to prove the charge against the petitioner and justify the imposed penalty.

5. Considering the facts of the case, the court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The court discharged the rule, affirming the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in penalizing the petitioner for the alleged misconduct.