2019 (12) TMI 1026 - HC - Customs

Court distinguishes negligence from misconduct, rules in favor of petitioner

The court found that the petitioner's actions, though negligent, did not constitute misconduct. It held that the disciplinary authority's conclusions ... Misconduct - Appraiser (Customs) - out of charge order - it is alleged that the petitioner cleared the consignment by making a false report that he had examined 40 packages in the said consignment, despite the said consignment not being detained in the area under his jurisdiction. - whether petitioner can be said to have committed misconduct warranting disciplinary action? HELD THAT:- The jurisprudential connotation of “misconduct” is required to be kept in view. The norm of conduct expected of an employee is often spelled out in the Code of Conduct or the Conduct Rules. The complained act or omission is thus required to be tested on the touchstone of it being in conformity with the conduct expected of the employee. Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules enjoins the civil servant to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and refrain from an act or omission, which can be termed as that of ‘unbecoming of a government servant’. Viewed through the prism of the statutory provision, the act or omission which is in breach of the prescription of conduct amounts to misconduct. Whether the complained act or omission amounts to misconduct is thus required to be judged in the context of the nature of such act or omission, the circumstances in which it occurred and its impact. The act or omission, which is tainted with ill motive, moral turpitude and improper or unlawful behaviour with an element of willfulness therein or any fagrant violation of an express stipulation, squarely fall within the mischief of misconduct. Negligence, lapse in performance of duty, errors of judgment or innocent mistake, on the other hand, stand at the other end of the spectrum and generally do not constitute a misconduct. In a given situation, a single act or omission or error of judgment would not ordinarily constitute misconduct though when such an error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct. It is not an inviolable rule of law that the gross negligence or lapse in performance of duty entailing serious consequences may not amount to misconduct. Gross or habitual negligence in performance of duty may not involve means rea yet it may still constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. The cleavage in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority was on the point of the petitioner having calculatingly fed and generated fallacious (false) document – item (ii) extracted above. The word “calculatingly” covers in its fold a mental element. It is impregnated with an idea of deliberateness. It implies that the action was taken after taking into account the foreseeable consequences thereof. The element of an intentional and deliberate act, therefore, was part of Charge-II attributed to the petitioner. 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 - 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”. The tribunal did not examine this aspect of the matter. The tribunal, on the other hand, posed unto itself the question of proportionality of the punishment. Since the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority differed on the aspect of the culpability of the conduct, the tribunal ought to have examined the question of proof of misconduct. Thus, we are persuaded to interfere with the order of the tribunal as well as the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the disciplinary authority's findings.2. Validity of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.3. Examination of the concept of 'misconduct' in the context of disciplinary proceedings.4. Evaluation of the evidence and findings by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the disciplinary authority's findings:The petitioner challenged the disciplinary authority's judgment, which disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's findings, particularly regarding Charge-II. The Inquiry Officer had partially proved Charge-II based on factual content without attributing ill motive, while Charges I and III were not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, concluded that Charge-II was fully proven, asserting that the petitioner's actions were deliberate and willful, amounting to gross dereliction of duty under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellate authority upheld this view, emphasizing the petitioner's gross misconduct and breach of duty.2. Validity of the penalty imposed on the petitioner:The penalty imposed was a reduction in pay by three stages for one year. The petitioner contested this, arguing that the disciplinary authority could not draw divergent conclusions on the same set of facts, especially when exonerated of Charges I and III, which involved intent to cause wrongful gain or loss. The petitioner also contended that the disciplinary authority provided unjustifiable reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings and that the material on record did not indicate gross negligence amounting to misconduct.3. Examination of the concept of 'misconduct' in the context of disciplinary proceedings:The court examined the jurisprudential connotation of 'misconduct,' noting that it involves wrongful intention, improper or unlawful behavior, and willful actions. Negligence or carelessness, unless resulting in serious consequences, generally does not constitute misconduct. The court referred to precedents, including State of Punjab vs. Ram Singh and Union of India vs. J. Ahmed, to elucidate the distinction between misconduct and mere negligence or error of judgment.4. Evaluation of the evidence and findings by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority:The Inquiry Officer found no evidence of conspiracy or ill motive, attributing the petitioner's actions to inadvertent mistakes due to system limitations. The disciplinary authority, however, viewed the actions as deliberate and calculating, a conclusion the court found unsupported by the evidence. The court noted that the absence of conspiracy, ill motive, and deliberate intent negated the element of misconduct. The appellate authority's acknowledgment of the lack of mala fide intent further supported this view.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner's actions, while negligent, did not amount to misconduct. The tribunal erred in focusing on the proportionality of the penalty rather than examining the proof of misconduct. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, and exonerated the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings.