Court upholds special stock taking validity and denial of copies in departmental enquiry not prejudicial

The Court upheld the validity of the special stock taking conducted by the Excise Department, ruling that the Collector's order was based on authorized officers' report and within their jurisdiction. The denial of copies of statements in the departmental enquiry was deemed non-prejudicial as the petitioner had signed weighment sheets without protest and had the opportunity to cross-examine inspectors. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging both issues, finding the special stock taking lawful and the denial of copies not detrimental to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of special stock taking conducted by Excise Department.
2. Denial of copies of statements of inspectors in departmental enquiry and its impact on the proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of special stock taking
The petitioner contended that the stock taking conducted from 15-10-1961 to 21-10-1961 was not the usual stock taking but a special one, requiring prior authorization from the Collector under Rule 223A. The Department argued that the two Inspectors initially conducted a surprise inspection under Rule 197, reported shortages to the Collector, who then ordered the special stock taking on 17-10-1961. The Court held that the Collector's order for special stock taking was valid, as it was based on the report of authorized officers and was within their jurisdiction. The contention that there was no valid proceeding by the Collector was rejected.

Issue 2: Denial of copies of statements
The petitioner sought copies of statements made by inspectors in a departmental enquiry to challenge the weighment sheets and alleged shortages. The Court noted that the petitioner had signed the weighment sheets without protest and had not raised concerns immediately after the weighments. Although the petitioner was denied copies of the statements, the inspectors were offered for cross-examination, which the petitioner availed. The Court found that the denial of copies did not prejudice the petitioner, as the signed weighment sheets were the primary evidence. The Court emphasized that principles of natural justice should be applied contextually, and in this case, the statements were not crucial for challenging the signed records. Thus, the contention regarding the denial of copies was deemed unacceptable.

Conclusion:
The writ petition challenging the validity of the special stock taking and the denial of copies of statements was dismissed by the Court. The Court found the special stock taking to be lawful and concluded that the denial of copies did not prejudice the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

---