2019 (12) TMI 740 - HC - Customs

Misconduct of Inspector / officer of customs - Misdeclaration of goods - evasion of customs duty - contravention of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - long delay in conducting enquiry - HELD THAT - The Court notes that under Rule 14(3) (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it was incumbent, where the Government proposes to hold an inquiry, to draw the substance of imputations which would contain a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the Articles of Charge are proposed to be sustained. Although, as pointed out by learned counsel for the Petitioners, in disciplinary inquiry proceedings the rules of the CPC and the Evidence Act may not strictly apply, it is basic that the mere production of a document is not sufficient even in a disciplinary inquiry. There has to be some witness to prove such a document. Without a witness to prove the documents, the Enquiry Officer cannot take it on record as a genuine document - In the present case in the absence of any list of witnesses, there was no means by which the documents could have been proved by the Department in the inquiry proceedings. Delay in conducting enquiry - HELD THAT - It is fairly well-settled that an inordinate unexplained delay itself causes prejudice to an accused employee - In each of the present cases there was no valid explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating the preliminary enquiry. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings.
2. Absence of original documents.
3. Lack of witnesses to prove the charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inordinate Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings:
The primary issue addressed by the Court was the significant delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent, Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, and others. The Memorandum of Charges (MoC) was issued in 2012 for incidents that occurred in 2004. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed the MoC on the grounds of unexplained delay, referencing the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) instructions which mandate issuing a charge-sheet within six months from the date of the incident. The Court upheld the CAT's decision, noting that inordinate and unexplained delay itself causes prejudice to the accused employee. The Court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570, which emphasized the necessity of conducting disciplinary proceedings soon after the irregularities are committed to avoid prejudice and allegations of bias.

2. Absence of Original Documents:
Another critical issue was the unavailability of original documents necessary to substantiate the charges. Ms. Chaudhary had obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, confirming the absence of original Bills of Entry. The CAT found that the proceedings would be vitiated due to the lack of original documents. The Court concurred, stating that without original documents, the disciplinary proceedings would be a mere formality and any finding of the charges being proved would be perverse and unsustainable in law.

3. Lack of Witnesses to Prove the Charges:
The MoC did not include a list of witnesses to prove the charges against the Respondent. The CAT quashed the MoC, emphasizing that the absence of witnesses to prove the documentary evidence rendered the charges unprovable. The Court supported this view, referencing Rule 14(3) & (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which requires a list of documents and witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. The Court highlighted that mere production of documents is insufficient; there must be witnesses to prove the documents' authenticity. The Court cited LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491, which asserts that mere marking of exhibits does not dispense with the requirement of proving documents in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the CAT's decision to quash the disciplinary proceedings due to inordinate delay, absence of original documents, and lack of witnesses. However, the Court clarified that if the Petitioners can provide original documents, a list of witnesses, and a valid explanation for the delay, they may initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. This, however, should not be construed as carte blanche permission to reopen cases where employees have already superannuated, and the enquiry would be a mere formality.