2010 (11) TMI 741 - HC - Customs

Writ petitions - respondent(s) were working in Central Excise Department at International Airport as Inspectors of Central Excise etc. CBI conducted raid and seized certain foreign and Indian currency and certain other items from their counters - contention of the writ petitioners is that the delay was on account of the pendency of criminal appeal and immediately after the disposal of the appeal, in which the respondents were acquitted, the departmental action is initiated and as such it cannot be said that there is any delay. There is no prohibition in proceeding against the respondents departmentally, though they were acquitted in the criminal case - Held that - there is abnormal delay in initiating departmental proceedings, may be on account of waiting for the disposal of the criminal proceedings, which ultimately are not proved and as after acquittal in the criminal case, the Enquiry Officer also found the respondents not guilty, there is no justification in continuing the departmental proceedings any further against the respondents, all the writ petitions dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in initiating departmental proceedings.
2. Impact of acquittal in criminal proceedings on departmental actions.
3. Similarity of charges in criminal and departmental proceedings.
4. Findings of the Enquiry Officer in departmental proceedings.
5. Potential for prolonged litigation and its impact on respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Initiating Departmental Proceedings:
The respondents argued that the charge memos were issued twelve years after the incident, indicating an abnormal delay. The petitioners contended that the delay was due to the pendency of the criminal appeal, and departmental action was initiated immediately after the respondents' acquittal. The court noted that the proceedings had been ongoing for more than a decade and a half, causing continuous tension and suspension for the respondents.

2. Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings on Departmental Actions:
The respondents contended that since they were acquitted by the criminal court, they should not face departmental proceedings based on the same evidence. The petitioners argued that there is no prohibition in proceeding departmentally despite the acquittal. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments, noting that acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental proceedings, but the applicability depends on the facts of each case.

3. Similarity of Charges in Criminal and Departmental Proceedings:
The court observed that the allegations in the charge memos were similar to the charges in the criminal case, where the respondents were accused of conspiracy, collecting various currencies, and helping passengers evade customs duty.

4. Findings of the Enquiry Officer in Departmental Proceedings:
The Enquiry Officer's reports, placed before the court, indicated that the charges against the respondents were not proved. The court emphasized this finding, noting that the Enquiry Officer's conclusions were in favor of the respondents.

5. Potential for Prolonged Litigation and Its Impact on Respondents:
The court considered the potential for another round of litigation if the departmental proceedings continued, which could last for another decade. The respondents were on the verge of retirement and had already suffered due to the prolonged proceedings. The court highlighted the abnormal delay and the fact that both the criminal court and the Enquiry Officer found the respondents not guilty, concluding that there was no justification for continuing the departmental proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, emphasizing the Enquiry Officer's findings in favor of the respondents and the prolonged delay in proceedings. The court made it clear that the decision was predominantly based on the Enquiry Officer's reports and the respondents' acquittal in the criminal case. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →