Surinder Pal Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—Vide judgment dated 21st August 2001, the Division Bench of this Court had given the following directions:

We are informed at this state that both Enquiry and Presentation Officers stood appointed to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner, that being so, this petition could be disposed of to the mutual satisfaction of both parties by providing thus:

Petitioner shall have four weeks time from today to submit his reply to charge sheet in the absence of copies of his pre recorded statements u/s 108 and without prejudice to his contentions in this regard. However, Respondents are directed to furnish these statements to him two weeks before prosecution evidence commences. Enquiry officer shall be at liberty to proceed with enquiry after expiry of three weeks from now and which he shall conclude within six months from the date petitioner is asked to appear before him.

The petitioner filed this contempt petition that he was not being supplied the copies of statements recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act despite representations and was given a certificate of non availability of documents certificate before the inquiry officer. The certificate was issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The said certificate was annexed as Annexure-A-6. It is stated that there was intentional non compliance of the order of the Court and, therefore, the respondent should be punished for its conduct.

It is an undisputed fact that the inquiry officer had written to the disciplinary authorities that the plea taken by the petitioner was that the pre- recorded statements of witnesses were not being supplied to him and due to non providing of all these pre-recorded statements, the inquiry was getting delayed and the disciplinary authorities may face consequence of contempts of court. This letter was written by the inquiry officer on 25th January 2002. On 4th January 2002, the inquiry officer passed an order that the PO shall make all efforts to procure additional documents sought by the petitioner. If any of the documents was not available, a non availability certificate shall be issued.

Thereafter, on 26th February 2002, disciplinary authorities wrote to the inquiry officer that the charged officer (petitioner herein) has already inspected the files of DRI and has got the photocopies of the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner had not indicated in the list of additional documents sought by, the names of the witness and the dates on which their statements were being recorded. The Director (cargo) Unit, ICD i.e the Commissioner of Customs, who was stated to be custodian of documents would be asked to issue non availability certificates if the documents were not available with him.

The office of Commissioner of Customs House wrote a letter to the Assistant Director and Joint Director of Vigilance Customs and Central Excise, informing that the documents called from the Commissioner (J) were not available in the office. The Directorate General of Vigilance again reiterated that the documents were not available and it was stated that this letter be treated as certificate of non-availability. Vide his letter dated 27th February 2002, the inquiry officer observed that non- availability certificate was brought on record and copies of this certificate was given to the charged officer. The copies of documents at S. No. 2.6 and 10 of the list of additional documents sought by the charged officer were already being provided to him. He, therefore, fixed the date of inquiry as 18th March 2002. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed this petition for contempt.

I consider that this petition did not lie on the date it was filed since all those documents which were sought by the petitioner were either supplied to him or a non availability certificate was issued to him. The only effort of the petitioner seemed to be to delay the inquiry by filing one or the other petition. The petitioner''s prayer in respect of staying of the proceedings of this inquiry, was refused by this Court. Thereafter, during pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner made another application stating therein that after the contempt notice was received by the respondent, he was supplied with the copies of the statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act but at that time, the inquiry had already been concluded.

I have perused the documents on record and found that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to violate the orders of this Court. All efforts were made by the respondent to supply the copies of the documents to the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed inspection of the record and was given photocopies of the statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act as well. However, the petitioner had asked for supply of all photocopies of the statements of witnesses without even mentioning as to who were the witnesses whose statements he required. It is not the case that the petitioner was not supplied by the department, the material which was going to be used against him or the names and statement of witnesses who were to depose against the petitioner. The petitioner was supplied the statements of all those witnesses who were to depose against him and the petitioner was also supplied statements of witnesses recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act. However, in the Customs Cargo Office, the record, of statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act was not traceable at that time and a non availability certificate was issued in this regard. It seems later on when the contempt notice was issued more efforts were made to trace statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act, and two were found and supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has not stated how the non availability of these statements caused prejudice to him or if there was any mala fide intentions on the part of the respondent in not supplying these statements or that these statements were so vital for the petitioner''s defence.

I find that there was no deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court and no case for contempt is made out against the respondent. The petition, being without any basis, is hereby dismissed.