The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no bar in initiating disciplinary proceedings if the charged officer is acquitted of criminal proceedings arising out of the same cause of action. The judgment also emphasizes the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings, which is preponderance of probabilities, and the burden of proving prejudice due to non-supply of original documents lies upon the person claiming prejudice.

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal) in O.A No. 2850/2005 whereby the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.04.2005 of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.8,700 to Rs.8,300 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.05.2005 for a period of two years during which he was to earn no increment of pay.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent while posted as Inspector at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi gave a false examination report in respect of Bill of Entry No. 724870 dated 21.12.1998 filed by M/s Intertrade Incorporated, Noida declaring the imported goods to be ‘Plastic Buttons’ valued at Rs.56,531/- whereas on verification the packet was found to be intact and in its original packing. Goods on examination were found to be cellular phones along with batteries and chargers valued at Rs.74,80,000/-. The respondent was asked to show why a penalty under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on him. Prior to this show cause notice he was put under suspension vide order dated 15.01.1999. The show cause notice was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who vide order dated 19/25.08.1999 imposed a penalty on the applicant but the same was set aside by the Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘CESTAT’) vide order dated 12.07.2000. The suspension order was revoked vide order dated 18.08.2000 and the respondent re-joined his duties.

3. The respondent was also charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo dated 01.08.2000 on the same charge i.e. false examination report entered by him with respect to Bill of Entry No.724870 dated 21.12.1998. On denial of the charges by the respondent, an inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was conducted by the Inquiry Officer who in his report concluded that the charges levelled against the respondent were not found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority however, disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for a period of two years during which he was to earn no increment of pay. An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner of Central Excise who rejected the same vide order dated 19.10.2005 against which the respondent filed the O.A No.2850/2005 in which the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis that the main document i.e. the Bill of Entry was neither made available to the respondent nor its copy was produced during the enquiry proceedings which caused prejudice to the respondent. The petitioners have impugned this order of the Tribunal in this petition.

4. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review. He places reliance on B.C. Chaturvedi v Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 (paragraphs 12, 13 and 18) and Union of India & other v P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 (paragraph 12, 13 and 23).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further argued that the disagreement note by the Disciplinary Authority, order by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were all well-reasoned and based on the relevant material on record and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further urged that the fact that the original Bill of Entry was not supplied to the respondent will have no bearing on the present case as the genuineness of that document was never questioned by the respondent and he could not prove any prejudice by the non-production of the original Bi