Disciplinary proceedings may rely on unretracted customs admissions and sufficient record, with no interference absent procedural breach.

Disciplinary findings will not be interfered with where the employee received reasonable opportunity, including personal hearings, and no breach of natural justice or disciplinary rules is shown. An unretracted statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitting countersignature of examination reports and inadequate supervision, could be relied on in disciplinary proceedings because strict rules of evidence do not apply. The absence of original or legible shipping bills was not fatal, as the admissions, examination report, and other record provided sufficient material to prove misconduct. The disciplinary authority was therefore entitled to disagree with the inquiry officer and sustain Charge No. I, and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary finding and penalty imposed on the petitioner were liable to be interfered with for want of procedural violation, insufficiency of evidence, or failure to consider the petitioner's statement and admissions.

Analysis: The petitioner was given reasonable opportunity at all stages, including personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, and no procedural breach of the disciplinary rules or principles of natural justice was shown. The petitioner had admitted in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 that he had countersigned the examination reports and had not properly supervised examination of the goods. That statement was not retracted and could be relied upon in disciplinary proceedings, where strict rules of evidence do not apply. The absence of original or legible copies of the shipping bills was not fatal because the petitioner's own admissions, coupled with the examination report and the material on record, furnished sufficient basis for the finding of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority therefore had adequate material to disagree with the Inquiry Officer and to hold Charge No. I proved.

Conclusion: The disciplinary action was valid and the punishment did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings, a voluntary and unretracted statement having evidentiary value may be acted upon, and the findings will not be disturbed where reasonable opportunity was afforded and sufficient material supports the charge.

---