AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Swaroop Reddy, J.—All these writ petitions are filed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-II against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 313 to 324 and 438 of 1997.
The relevant facts are : The respondent(s) in all these writ petitions, who filed the above OAs, were working in Central Excise Department at International Airport as Inspectors of Central Excise etc. The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted raid on 20-7-1995 and seized certain foreign and Indian currency and certain other items from their counters. A panchanama was prepared about the recovery and the respondents were prosecuted before the Special Court for CBI Cases in C.C. No. 11 of 1999 for the offences u/s 120B IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the above calendar case, in support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs P-1 to P-34 and MOs 1 to 29.
All the respondents herein were convicted by the Special Judge vide its judgment dated: 25-1-2002 and they were sentenced to fine and imprisonment. As against the same they filed Crl. A. Nos. 81 and 141 of 2002 and those appeals were allowed by this court on 3-1-2006. Thus all the respondents herein were ultimately acquitted of all the criminal charges. Thereafter charge Memos were issued to the respondents on 28-3-2007 for the same violations for which they were prosecuted and acquitted. Challenging the same the respondents herein filed the above OAs contending that the charge Memos were issued after twelve years of the incident; there is abnormal delay; that when they were acquitted by the criminal court, they cannot be proceeded against departmentally, as the same evidence on the basis of which they were tried and acquitted is being let in the departmental enquiry.
The contention of the writ petitioners is that the delay was on account of the pendency of criminal appeal and immediately after the disposal of the appeal, in which the respondents were acquitted, the departmental action is initiated and as such it cannot be said that there is any delay. There is no prohibition in proceeding against the respondents departmentally, though they were acquitted in the criminal case.
This court on 9-6-2009 while suspending the order passed by the Tribunal ordered "that the departmental proceedings may go on, but the final orders pursuant to the report of the enquiry officer shall not be passed and that the enquiry shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". However, the above time of three months was extended by this court and ultimately now the enquiry is completed. On our instructions, the enquiry reports are placed before us for perusal.
As seen from paragraph-2, of the judgment of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, in C.C. No. 11 of 1999, the substance of the allegations leveled against the accused (the present respondents) is that all of them entered into conspiracy on 20-7-1995, collected amounts in different denominations - Rs. 22,700-00 Indian Currency; 2735 UAE Dinarams; 25 Oman Riyals; 262 US Dollars; 660 Saudi Ri-yals; 100 Oman Riyal Biyasa; 200 Oman Biyasa from the passengers coming from Foreign countries. They also collected some foreign articles prohibited under Law. They also helped the passengers to evade customs duty. Thus the allegations mentioned in the charge Memo are similar to the charges framed in the criminal case.
Another significant aspect in this case is that the Enquiry Officer, in all the enquiries, held that the charges are not proved, as seen from the enquiry reports, now placed before us.
Now the question is whether there are any grounds for allowing these writ petitions.
As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents the proceedings were started on 20-7-1995 - more than a decade and half. All these days, the respondents have undergone the ordeal of facing trial, conviction and sentence which was in force from 25-1-2002 to 3-1-2006 (for four years); during which period they were under suspension for some time. They were under continuous tension for all these years.
The amount/property involved is also not substantial. The following are the amounts/articles seized from the respondents in the writ petitions as shown against them.
Smt. N. Bhagyavathi (W.P. No.740 of 2009)
s.
No.
Currency seized
Item seized
1.
Indian Rs. 500 x 6 - 3,000-00
One Lomani Paris
2.
Indian Rs. 100 x 3 = 300-00
Spray
3.
UAE Dirham 100 x 3 = 300
4.
UAE Dirham 10 x 5 = 50
5.
UAE Dirham 50 x 3 = 150
6.
Oman Rivals 10 x 1 = 10
7.
Oman Rivals 1 x 2 = 2
Sri J. Chennakesavulu. (W.P. No. 154 of 2009)
s. No.
Currency seized
Item seized
1.
Indian Rs. 10 x 100 = Rs. 1000-00
One 100 ml bottle of Astral Natural Spray One 75ml bottle of Jamilets
2.
Indian Rs. 500 x 4 = Rs. 2,000-00
3.
US Dollars 50 x 1 = 100
4.
Saudi Riyals 100 x 1 = 100
5.
UAE Dirham 50 x 1 = 50
6.
Saudi Riyals 10 x 2 = 20
7.
UAE Dirham 10 x 3 = 30
8.
Saudi Riyals 50 x 1 = 50
Sri M.B.G. Tilak (W.P. No. 744 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 10 x 100 = Rs. 1000-00
One 150 ml Pour Le Corps Perfume bottle with markings of Abhudhabi of 177.0
One 250ml NievaCreme No. 570
2.
Indian Rs. 100 x 3 = Rs. 300-00
3.
Saudi Riyals 100 x 2 = 200
4.
Saudi Riyals 50 x 3 = 150
Sri T. Krishna Murthy. (W.P. No. 743 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
US Dollars 20 x 1 = 20
Immigration slips and other chits numbering 72.
2.
Saudi Riyals 10 x 2 = 20
3.
Saudi Riyals 50 x 1 = 50
4.
UAE Dirham 10 x 2 = 20
5.
UAE Dirham 50 x 2 = 100
6.
UAE Dirham 100 x 2 = 200
7.
Indian Rs. 500 x 5 = 2500
8.
Indian Rs. 100 x 10 = 1000
9.
Indian Rs. 50 x 10 = 500.
Sri V. Raghuram. (W.P. No. 742 of 2009
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
US Dollars 20 x 1 = 20
2.
Saudi Riyals 10 x 2 = 20
3.
Saudi Riyals 50 x 2 = 100
4.
UAE Dirham 10 x 3 = 30
5.
UAE Dirhma 100 x 2 = 200
6.
Indian Rs. 500 x 4 = 2000
7.
Indian Rs. 100 x 8 = 800
8.
Indian Rs. 50 x 5 = 250
Sri N. Ratnakar (W.P., No. 739 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Currency Rs. 100 x 2 - Rs. 200
One Small Chatelle Eau De Toilet Spray
2.
US Dollars 100 x 1 = Rs. 100
3.
UAE Dirham 100 x 4 = 400
Sri M. Venkata Raman a (W.P. No. 741 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 500 x 2 = Rs. 1000
2.
Oman Riyals 10 x 1 = 10
3.
UAE Dirhman 10 x 5 = 50
4.
UAE Dirhman 50 x 6 = 300
5.
UAE Dirhman 100 x 6 = 600
Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana (W.P. No. 12746 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 10 x 100 = Rs. 1000
2.
Indian Rs. 100 x 3 = Rs. 300
3.
Saudi Riyals 100 x 2 = 200
Sri M. Prem Kumar (W.P. No. 738 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 10 x 100 = Rs. 1000-00
One 100 ml bottle of Astral Natural spray
2.
Indian Rs. 500 x 4 = Rs. 2000-00
One 75 ml bottle of Jamilets
3.
US Dollars 50 x 1 = Rs. 50-00
4.
Saudi Riyals 100 x 1 = 100-00
5.
UAE Dirham 50 x 1 = 50
6.
Saudi Riyals 10 x 2 = 20
7.
UAE Dirham 10 x 3 = 30
8.
Saidi Riyals 50 x 1 = 50
Sri P. Anjaneya Rao (W.P., No. 745 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 500x 6 = 3000-00
One Lomani Paris Spray
2.
Indian Rs. 100 x 3 = Rs. 300-00
3.
UAE Dirhman 100 x 3 = 300
4.
UAE Dirhman 100 x 5 = 500
5.
UAE Dirhman 50 x 3 = 150
6.
Oman Riyals 10 x 1 = 10
7.
Oman Riyals 1 x 2
Sri V. Nagaraju (W.P.No. 746 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 500 x 2
One 70 cl bottle of Sempe Napoleon Armagnac French Wine with price tag of 65 UAE Dirham
One 1 lr bottle of Carta Blank Rum, Bacardi Superior with price tag; of 30 UAE Dirham
2.
Oman Riyals 10 x 1 = 10
3.
UAE Dirham 10 x 6 = 50
4.
UAE Dirham 50 x 3 = 300
5.
UAE Dirham 100 x 6 = 600
Sri K. Prakash Rao (W.P. No. 747 of 2009)
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 500 x 4 Rs. 2000-00
One 50 ml Kenyan Giral
Eau De Toilette Spray bottle.
One 120 ml Charlie eau de Toilette Spray bottle.
2.
Indian Rs. 100 x 8 = Rs. 800-00
3.
Indian Rs. 50 x 5 = Rs. 250-000
4.
UAE Dirham 100 x 1 = 100
Sri T. Yadagire - W.P. No. 748 of 2009
S.No.
Currency seized
Items seized
1.
Indian Rs. 100 x 5 = Rs. 500
2.
Indian Rs. 50 x 2 = Rs. 100
3.
UAE Dirham 10 x 2 = 20
Thus the amounts are not substantial. No doubt as the amount is said to have been collected on single day, it is reasonably high. However, it is not a case where the amounts are running into lakhs of rupees or misappropriation of any huge amounts. Now we are in a period where the allegations of misappropriation are running into crores of rupees and some times to thousands of crores of rupees.
Coming to the legal question, the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court on the question as to whether the accused, who were acquitted in criminal case can be proceeded against departmentally, are divergent. In The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vs. P. Kata Rao, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal case would not be a bar for initiation of departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. But the applicability of the above principle would depend on facts situation of each case. That was a case where a Bank officer facilitated his wife to get undue pecuniary benefit by permitting unauthorized adjustments which were done with his prior knowledge and he sanctioned and released loans to his close relatives in contravention of Head Office Circulars. Thus the contravention in the above case is very serious and the amounts involved were also high. In paragraph 21 of the above judgment, the Apex Court held "The case at hand is an exceptional one. The respondent was a responsible officer. He was holding a position of trust and confidence. He was proceeded with both on the charges of criminal misconduct as also civil misconduct on the same set of facts, subject, of course, to the exception that charges 11 and 15 stricto sensu were not the subject-matter of criminal proceeds, as integrity and diligence, however, were not in question. Before us also it has not been contended that he had made any personal gain", which is not in the present case.
In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Naman Singh Sekhawat, also similar view was expressed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
In Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida - 2007 (10) SCC 385 the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that "the departmental enquiry is distinct from criminal proceedings. Standard of proof required in departmental enquiry is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge. Even acquittal in criminal case does not bar departmental enquiry."
Thus the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down that it would depend on the circumstances of each case. The circumstances can be like gravity of offence, similarity of charges, time consumed in initiating departmental proceedings; long lapse of time in initiating departmental proceedings etc.
In this case, on facts, which we have already referred to the extent necessary, we feel that it is not a case where after acquittal of the accused in criminal case, departmental proceedings can be maintained. Further more, in this case, another important aspect is that the Report of the Enquiry Officer, which is circulated to the Bench, is in favour of the respondents-accused.
The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contends that in spite of the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding that the respondents are not guilty of the charges, the appropriate authority can take a different view and still punish the respondents. This position is undisputed. Now, again the department has to give findings on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer deviating with his findings; the respondents would obviously challenge the same initiating one more round of litigation, which might again last for about a decade; the present proceedings initiated are already pending for more than a decade and half. It is reported that most of the respondents are on the verge of retirement and as already referred to, through out this period they have suffered. In all these circumstances and in view of the fact that there is abnormal delay in initiating departmental proceedings, may be on account of waiting for the disposal of the criminal proceedings, which ultimately are not proved and as after acquittal in the criminal case, the Enquiry Officer also found the respondents not guilty, we feel absolutely there is no justification in continuing the departmental proceedings any further against the respondents.
We make it clear that predominantly for the reason that the enquiry officer also did not find the respondents guilty, as revealed from the reports now placed before us; we are dismissing all the writ petitions.
In the result all the writ petitions are dismissed for the reasons above stated. No costs.