2013 (10) TMI 65 - HC - Customs

Disciplinary proceedings against the customs officer (Inspector) - delay in the proceedings - Held that - the delay in initiation of the proceedings certainly has lent room for allegations of bias, mala fide and misuse of powers against the respondent by the petitioners. - when a plea of unexplained delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings as well as prejudice to the delinquent officer is raised, the court has to weigh the facts appearing for and against the petitioners pleas and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. The court has to indulge in a process of balancing. The plea of the petitioners that they did not have the original documents or certified copies thereof is baseless and rightly rejected by the Tribunal in the impugned order. As noted above, the petitioners were in possession of photocopy of original shipping bills which photocopy had been prepared by them and were available throughout. Even if the plea that the original documents or certified copy were necessary for initiating the disciplinary proceedings were to be accepted, the action of the respondents was grossly belated and certainly the long period which has lapsed was not necessary for procuring the same. The respondents have failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. - Decided in favor of customs officer.

Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate and unexplained delay in commencement of disciplinary proceedings.
2. Adequate explanation for the delay in issuance of the charge sheet.
3. Prejudice to the respondent due to the delay.
4. Applicability of judicial precedents on delay in disciplinary proceedings.
5. Validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision to quash the disciplinary proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Commencement of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The petitioners challenged the CAT's judgment quashing the disciplinary proceedings due to an "inordinate and unexplained delay" in initiating the action. The respondent joined the Customs Department in 1976 and had 35 years of meritorious service. The disciplinary proceedings were based on a transaction from 1998-1999, but the charge memo was issued only on 25th February 2011, more than 13 years later. The CAT found that relevant documents were available with the petitioners and concluded that the delay was excessive and unexplained.

2. Adequate Explanation for the Delay in Issuance of the Charge Sheet:
The petitioners argued that the delay was due to the non-availability of original or certified copies of 219 shipping bills from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). However, it was found that the Customs Department had retained Xerox copies of the original documents. The Tribunal noted that the petitioners had full knowledge of the transactions and the necessary documents were available to them, thus rejecting the explanation for the delay.

3. Prejudice to the Respondent Due to the Delay:
The Tribunal and the High Court emphasized that unexplained and unreasonable delay causes prejudice to the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court has held that such delay results in mental agony and distress, and it is unfair to permit the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after an inordinate delay. The respondent would have faced difficulty in defending himself due to the lapse of time, leading to blurred memory and loss of records.

4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents on Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings:
The judgment referenced several Supreme Court cases, including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Another, State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, and P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which established that unexplained and unreasonable delays in disciplinary proceedings are grounds for quashing them. The principles laid down in these cases were applied to the present matter, reinforcing that the delay was prejudicial to the respondent.

5. Validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) Decision to Quash the Disciplinary Proceedings:
The CAT's decision to quash the disciplinary proceedings was based on the finding that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the petitioners failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay. The Tribunal's judgment was found to be consistent with established legal principles and judicial precedents, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the CAT's order.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's decision to quash the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent due to inordinate and unexplained delay. The Court emphasized the importance of timely disciplinary actions and the prejudice caused to employees by unreasonable delays. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs.20,000 to the respondent.

← Previous Next →