Mere Negligence without ill motive / mala fide intent is not Misconduct

Satyendra Singh Gurjar Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

Firstly, the failure of the department to bring home the Charge-I to the petitioner dismantles the substratum of the charge as regards the ill motive on the part of the petitioner. Secondly, the failure to establish the charge of conspiracy against the petitioner snaps the link between the petitioner and other persons, who imported the goods by evading the customs duty. Thirdly, the fact that Charge-III could not be established leads to an inference that the act of the petitioner was not coupled with a deliberate mala fide intent to assist the importers and the exoneration of the petitioner from the said Charge-III leads to further inference that the petitioner did not give out of charge order for unlawful monetary or other extraneous consideration. Fourthly, if all these elements reflecting upon the state of mind of the petitioner are completely and thoroughly ruled out, then it would not be permissible to introduce the same element of deliberateness and willfulness by holding that the act was calculated one. Lastly, it is imperative to note that even the appellate authority recorded an express finding that the material on record negated the allegations in concluding part of Charge-II about the mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner to create false documents.

If the element of state of mind is thus completely effaced the matter gets restricted to the consideration of the aspect of the gross negligence or carelessness. There are circumstances which suggest that though there was lapse on the part of the petitioner in issuing out of charge order, undoubtedly without inspecting the consignment in question; yet it cannot be said to be such a gross negligence as would constitute misconduct. Mr. Ramesh Pandey (DW-3) testified to the fact of bill of entry being submitted alongwith five bills pertaining to the consignment within the jurisdiction of the petitioner and out of charge order being obtained inadvertently. To add to this, two of the department’s officers, namely, Mr. Madhuranjan Singh (DW-1) and Mr. H. C. Verma (DW-2) have deposed that the then prevelant system did not give the Appraisers the chance to examine whether the consignment in question was within the jurisdiction entrusted to them. Thirdly, the petitioner made an endorsement of having examined 40 packages only. The consignment in question was reported to contain 1407 cartons. If the act of the petitioner was deliberate and with intent to create a false record, the petitioner would have made an endorsement of having examined at least 70 packages, to conform to the norm of inspection of 5% of the consignment.

In our view, these circumstance, if considered in conjunction with total absence of ill motive, mala fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of “misconduct”.

In View of the above ) The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3^rd November, 2017, the Order in Original, dated 11^th March, 2014, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and order in appeal passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs dated 24^th September, 2014, are quashed and set aside. The finding of misconduct recorded by the disciplinary authority and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority of reduction in pay by three stages stands quashed and set aside. The petitioner stands exonerated of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.