Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P. DHANABAL, JJ.
The Government of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others – Appellants
Versus
M. Pandaram & Another – Respondents
W.P.No. 10153 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Customs Department - [Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs.Akhilesh Jha and Another (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 460, U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others Vs.Narendra Kumar Malik and another 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 483, State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs.Rajit Singh Civil Appeal Nos.2049-2050 of 2022, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faizabad Vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and others (1995) 3 Supreme Court cases 134, Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Vs.M.Rathakrishnan 2017 SCC online Mad 37834] - The Court found that the delay in disciplinary proceedings was not properly explained by the Department, and therefore, the charges were quashed based on the nature of the case and the lack of valid and acceptable explanation for the delay.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition was filed to quash the charge memorandum issued to the first respondent in a disciplinary proceeding by the Customs Department. The alleged incident occurred in 2009, was detected in 2012, and the charge memo was issued in 2021. The first respondent challenged the charge memo on the ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay in disciplinary proceedings was not properly explained by the Department, and therefore, the charges were quashed based on the nature of the case and the lack of valid and acceptable explanation for the delay.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in disciplinary proceedings and the validity of the charge memo issued after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the delay in disciplinary proceedings must be properly explained by the Department, and in the absence of a valid and acceptable explanation, the charges can be quashed based on the nature of the case.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the charge memorandum due to the unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of second respondent in O.A.No.310/0002/2022 dated 03.01.2023, quash the same as erroneous, illegal and contrary to the service jurisprudence as held by the Apex Court in catena of cases.)
P. Dhanabal, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or other orders to call for the records of second respondent in O.A.No.310/0002/2022 dated 03.01.2023, quash the same and to pass such other orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem in fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. As agreed by both side counsels, this case has been taken up for disposal in the admission stage itself.
3. The necessary facts to dispose of this writ petition can be stated as follows:-
(i) The first respondent joined the Customs Department as Preventive Officer in the year 1993 and thereafter, he was promoted as Superintendent in the year 2002 and posted at CONCOR ICD (Then CONCOR CSF) and as Assistant Commissioner in the year 2018. During the period 2009, when the first respondent was working as Superintendent in Chennai Customs House, he had issued “Let Export Order” of Shipping Bill Nos.3404489, 3404498 and 3404499 dated 18.06.2009 filed by M/s.A.L.Enterprises, Chennai in container HDMU 6703208 from Container Corporation of India, ICD, Thiruvottiyur, for the goods which had never entered the Port for export. Pursuant to the said “Let Export Order” M/s.A.L.Enterprises had got duty Draw Back amount of Rs.6.11 lakhs resulting in loss of Revenue to the Government.
(ii) Based on the intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (DRI), Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai, seized red sanders from the export consignment in the name of M/s. Sri Sai Ram exports covered under Shipping Bills No.9029895/22.05.2012. On completion of investigation, the said case was adjudicated on 25.04.2014 by the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Export), Chennai. During the course of investigation in the above said case in the year 2012-2013, it came to light that out of 55 Shipping Bills, M/s.A.L.Enterprises had filed 26 shipping bills during the year 2009-2010 and had received drawback fraudulently without receipt of any foreign remittances. It was found that the goods pertaining to M/s.A.L.Enterprises and M/s.Sri Sai Ram Exports were exported in the same container.
(iii) As per investigation, no physical export of goods had taken place against the said shipping bills and no sale proceeds were realized. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) revealed that certain errors were noticed in the shipping bills and were sent to error queue in the EDI system. These shipping bills were forcefully amended in the system to push these shipping bills to the Drawback queue. The DRI took up investigation in respect of the alleged fraudulent availment of drawback to the tune of Rs.1.47 crores by M/s.A.L Enterprises, Chennai and 3 others during the period from June 2009 to December 2009. The DRI investigation had revealed that the goods were not exported and were not even brought to the Container Freight Station (CFS). The DRI had completed the investigation and filed the report in October 2018. In view of the above, DRI, CZU had referred the aforesaid four cases for vigilance investigation. Thereafter, the above said cases were referred to Directorate General of Vigilance (DGoV), New Delhi Headquarters by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, to identify the Superintendents who have granted Let Export Order in respect of shipping bills concerned.
(iv) Subsequently, the aforesaid cases were referred to South Zonal Unit of DGoV, New Delhi (Headquarters). As directed by DGoV, Headquarters, vide letters dated 16.12.2019 and 17.12.2019, DGoV, Chennai, conducted vigilance investigation and r
The delay in disciplinary proceedings must be properly explained by the Department, and in the absence of a valid and acceptable explanation, the charges can be quashed based on the nature of the cas....
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings must be examined on a case-by-case basis, and prejudice caused by the delay can lead to the quashing of the charge sheet. Inordinate delay in issuing the ....
Delay alone is not a sufficient ground to quash disciplinary proceedings. Prejudice must be demonstrated, and the gravity of the charges and all relevant factors involved in the case must be consider....
Timeliness and adherence to rules in disciplinary proceedings are critical; undue delays can lead to quashing of charge sheets.
Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee undermines the principles of natural justice and warrants quashing the penalty imposed.
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of delay; the severity of allegations must also be considered.
Delays in disciplinary proceedings render outcomes unsustainable due to violation of statutory guidelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
