SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The Air Force personnel deputed to ferry AN-32 aircrafts from Russia to India, utilized the stoppage on the way at Dubai to purchase dutiable and contraband goods and on detection, the same has resulted in disciplinary action against such service personnel including the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Air Force in the Flying Branch on 16.10.1965. A team of 32 personnel was detailed to ferry three AN-32 aircrafts from Russia to India. The team consisted of three Captains, Wing Commander B.S. Bakshi, Flight Lieutenant S. Katoch and the petitioner, who was also a Wing Commander. The team also included one Wing Commander J. Jaggi, who was the Logistic Member and Wing Commander A.K. Chaturvedi as the Engineering Member. It is the common case of the parties that before leaving for Russia all the members were given detailed briefing at the Air Headquarters regarding Custom rules and regulations and each member signed a declaration that he had read and understood the same. The rules stipulated that: (a) No contraband goods were to be carried in the aircraft. (b) No parcels were to be accepted unless they were authorized. (c) No unaccompanied baggage was to be carried and/or to be off loaded at Jamnagar unless it was authorized by Air Headquarters, and; (d) No luggage was to be accepted unless it was properly manifested and had clear and legible markings.

.3. The routing for bringing the aircrafts to Delhi was through Dubai. The aircrafts after refueling at Dubai landed at Jamnagar on 8.6.1988. The DRI officials asked all the crew members to declare the items brought by them. It is the case of the petitioner that he declared the items brought by him and paid duties of Rs.4,137.00 while out of other crew members some declared a few items. A search was carried out by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which found a large number of dutiable goods in the aircraft captained by the petitioner. Such dutiable goods were found in the other aircrafts also but in the aircraft of the petitioner apart from dutiable goods, two gold biscuits of hundred grams each were found concealed in a briefcase. These contraband goods were valued at Rs.2,85,260.00 at the time of seizure. No one claimed the ownership of the gold biscuits and in fact, all the goods were seized. The goods were absolutely confiscated after issuing a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as Section 79 of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 by the Collector of Customs (Gujarat) on 21.8.1989. The conduct of the petitioner as well as the other two Captains was found blameworthy on account of various lapses. The petitioner was found blameworthy on the following grounds: (a) Failure to ensure that all crew members comply with the customs regulations and declare all their baggage for customs check on arrival. (b) Failure to ensure that his crew members do not make purchases in excess of foreign exchange/other currency allowed to be carried by them. (c) Failure to ensure that no unidentified/unaccounted baggage is taken on board, which could jeopardize the security of the Aircraft. (d) Failure to ensure proper security of the service load in that the contents of mother case are not tampered and items of personal baggage are not put inside the mother cases.

4. The Court of Inquiry recommended a serious view to be taken of the alleged mass connivance of all the crew members and for disciplinary/administrative action against fourteen (14) persons including the petitioner. An additional Court of Inquiry was ordered on 28.1.1989 which took a serious view of the matter.

5. The petitioner received a communication dated 21.2.1990 expressing displeasure of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Air Command. However, this letter was cancelled without giving any reasons and it is the case of the petitioner that no further action could have been taken once the displeasure was given which really amounted to a censure. Ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document