2008 Supreme(SC) 500

S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Union of India and others - PETITIONER
Versus
Naman Singh Sekhawat - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2007
Decided On : 14/03/2008

Importent Point:
Where proceedings under Customs Act as well under IPC were also initiated, initiation of the departmental proceeding must be viewed in the background of the delinquent s total exoneration by the Customs Authorities and the criminal court.
Initiation of departmental proceeding is permissible even after the judgment of acquittal is recorded by the criminal court, but such a proceeding must be initiated bona fide.
An officer allowed to carry his official revolver and not trying to show or used the same or threaten the police party, cannot be held liable under the Arms Act.

Headnote:(a) Service Law - Departmental proceeding - Where proceedings under Customs Act as well under IPC were also initiated, initiation of the departmental proceeding must be viewed in the background of the delinquent s total exoneration by the Customs Authorities and the criminal court. (Para 18)

       (b) Service Law - Departmental proceeding - Proceeding initiated after an unexplained period of nine years - Copies of some documents were not supplied - Assistance of the departmental representative was denied - CAT rightly concluded that conduct of the Inquiry Officer has been throughout biased and it appears that he has acted with predetermined notions which should have caused prejudice to the applicant - Proceeding vitiated. (Paras 21 and 23)

       (c) Service Law - Departmental proceeding - Bias - The inquiry officer not taking recourse to Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules which he was bound to do particularly - His refusal to allow examination of a defence witness not explained - Why the Inquiry Officer cross-examined the respondent instead of the presenting officer is beyond anybody s comprehension - The bias on the part of the Inquiry Officer is thus explicit from the record. (Para 25)

       (d) Service Law - Departmental proceeding - Delay and latches - Departmental proceedings initiated on the ground that conduct of the delinquent embarrassed the department - If the conduct of the respondent did not cause any embarrassment to the department at the time of occurrence in the year 1983 it could not happen after ten years after exoneration by the Customs Authorities and acquittal by the criminal court - The disciplinary authority, therefore, for all intent and purport, differed with the findings of the Customs Department as well as the criminal court, but no basis therefor was disclosed - Proceeding vitiated. (Para 26)

       (e) Service Law - Departmental proceeding - Initiation of departmental proceeding is permissible even after the judgment of acquittal is recorded by the criminal court - But such a proceeding must be initiated bona fide. (Para 27)

       (2005) 7 SCC 764 - Relied upon

       (2006) 2 SCC 255; (2006) 4 SCC 265 - Distinguished

       (f) Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - An officer allowed to carry his official revolver and not trying to show or used the same or threaten the police party, cannot be held liable under the Act. (Para 32)

       (g) Service Law - Departmental proceeding - Principles of natural justice must be complied with in such proceedings - Non cross-examination of the witness whose statement went against the department vitiated the proceeding. (Para 35)

       (1986) 3 SCC 454; 2006 (11) SCALE 204; (2006) 8 SCC 8 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       1. Respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector (AICO-II). He was posted in the Intelligence Bureau. His principal function was to identify and collect sources of information from the locality in regard to anti national activities.

       2. On or about 5th August, 1983, the respondent accompanied by the driver of an official jeep, allegedly found a large number of smuggled goods at a place known as Ramsar Gagaria Road in the District of Barmer. While bringing the same in his jeep for their delivery to the Customs Authorities he was intercepted by a Jonga Jeep, which was being driven by one Bhoor Singh, a known smuggler, accompanied by the Head Constable Bhori Das and Constable Kirta Ram of the concerned Police Station.

       3. The respondent was booked on charge of conspiracy with the smugglers had been taking the smuggled goods in his official jeep.

       4. Proceedings under the Customs Act as well a Criminal proceeding was also initiated against him for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Foreigners Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act as also under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

       5. The Additional Collector, Customs and Central Excise, while directing confiscation of the goods of the foreign origin, dropped the charges against the respondent, Mool Singh and one Latif.

       6. In criminal case also the respondent was acquitted.

       7. Long thereafter, namely on 1st May, 1982, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal and the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal.

       8. CAT, however, directed respondent s reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

       9. A Writ Petition preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

       Findings of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result:

        Appeal dismissed with exemplary cost.