2008 (3) TMI 53 - SC - Customs

Charge that respondent (sub-inspector posted in Intelligence Bureau) had been taking smuggled goods in his official jeep, is in conspiracy with smuggler - no deeper probe was made in regard to his involvement - bias on part of the Inquiry Officer- no evidence on record to indicate their involvement in smuggling, so criminal proceedings dropped but even after drop of criminal proceedings, departmental proceedings can be carried on revenue appeal dismiss assessee entitled to cost of 1 lac

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged misuse of a government vehicle and revolver by the respondent.
2. Unauthorized collection and transportation of smuggled goods.
3. Validity of departmental proceedings initiated post-acquittal in criminal and customs cases.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged Misuse of Government Vehicle and Revolver
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector in the Intelligence Bureau, was accused of misusing a government vehicle and revolver for an unauthorized tour to the border area. The disciplinary proceedings charged him with using the vehicle and revolver without his superior's permission. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty, leading to his dismissal. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court found no evidence to support these charges, noting that the respondent was entitled to use the vehicle and revolver for his duties.

Issue 2: Unauthorized Collection and Transportation of Smuggled Goods
The respondent was also accused of unauthorizedly collecting and transporting smuggled goods in the government jeep. The Customs Authorities and the criminal court acquitted him of these charges. The Customs Authorities found no evidence linking the respondent to the smuggled goods, and the criminal court held that the prosecution failed to prove misappropriation or conspiracy. The Tribunal and the High Court concurred, noting that the only evidence against the respondent was the statement of Mool Singh, which did not support the charges.

Issue 3: Validity of Departmental Proceedings Post-Acquittal
The appellant argued that departmental proceedings could be initiated despite the respondent's acquittal in criminal and customs cases. The Supreme Court acknowledged that such proceedings are permissible but must be bona fide and based on new evidence. In this case, the departmental proceedings were initiated nine years after the incident, without any new evidence. The Court found this delay unexplained and indicative of a lack of bona fide intent.

Issue 4: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
The Supreme Court found significant procedural lapses in the departmental inquiry. The respondent was denied the opportunity to examine a key witness, Jumma, and his Defence Assistant was not allowed to attend the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer also cross-examined the respondent, which was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal characterized the Inquiry Officer's conduct as biased and prejudicial to the respondent. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the need for fair play and adherence to natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, finding no evidence to sustain the charges against the respondent. The Court ordered the respondent's reinstatement with all consequential benefits and awarded costs of Rupees One Lakh. The judgment emphasized the necessity of bona fide intent and adherence to natural justice in departmental proceedings, especially when they follow acquittals in criminal and customs cases.