2014 (1) TMI 66 - HC - Customs

Validity of tribunal s order - disciplinary inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules - Inordinate delay and laches in order - Imposition of penalty under Section 114 (i), 114 (ii) and 117 - Mis declaration of goods - Duty drawback - Order already attained finality - Held that - there was delay not only in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of the charge-sheet, but also gross and unexplained delay in appointment of the inquiry officer which was effected only on 4th March, 2008. The respondent has submitted that the purpose of the inquiry was to harass him despite his innocence - respondent was promoted; the order quashing the penalty which had been imposed upon the respondent were accepted by the petitioner herein; as well as the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation found no culpability of the respondent also lend substance to the case of the respondent - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order quashing disciplinary inquiry
2. Allegations of fraudulent exports and duty drawbacks
3. Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings
4. Unwarranted delay in appointment of inquiry officer
5. Prejudice due to delay and lack of opportunity for defense
6. Similar belated charge-sheets to other customs employees
7. Previous judgments on unwarranted delays in disciplinary proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to order quashing disciplinary inquiry
The petitioner challenged the order quashing the disciplinary inquiry against the respondent, citing unexplained delay and laches in initiating the proceedings. The Central Administrative Tribunal had held the memorandum for disciplinary inquiry void due to the delay in issuing it.

Issue 2: Allegations of fraudulent exports and duty drawbacks
The respondent, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was accused of involvement in fraudulent exports and duty drawbacks with benami companies. Investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence led to a penalty being imposed, which was later quashed by the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 3: Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings
There was significant delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, with the charge-sheet issued in 2006 for transactions dating back to 1998. The respondent argued that the delay prejudiced his defense as crucial witnesses were no longer available.

Issue 4: Unwarranted delay in appointment of inquiry officer
The appointment of an inquiry officer was significantly delayed, further adding to the delay in the disciplinary process. The respondent alleged harassment and lack of merit in the inquiry against him.

Issue 5: Prejudice due to delay and lack of opportunity for defense
The respondent highlighted the lack of incriminating evidence found by investigative agencies and previous judgments in similar cases where delays in disciplinary proceedings were deemed unwarranted. The delay was seen as prejudicial to the respondent's defense.

Issue 6: Similar belated charge-sheets to other customs employees
The petitioners issued belated charge-sheets to other customs employees involved in the same transactions. Previous cases, such as that of Joseph Kuok and Hari Singh, where challenges based on delays were successful, were cited as precedents.

Issue 7: Previous judgments on unwarranted delays in disciplinary proceedings
Previous judgments, including the case of Hari Singh, highlighted the unwarranted delays in disciplinary proceedings and the lack of adequate explanations for such delays. The court dismissed the current challenge to the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the lack of merit in the petitioner's arguments.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order quashing the disciplinary inquiry, citing unwarranted delays, lack of merit in the petitioner's arguments, and previous judgments upholding challenges based on delays in disciplinary proceedings. The costs were awarded to the respondent.