Court rejects petition to delay departmental proceedings pending criminal case, stresses independence of proceedings. Inquiry Officer to consider cross-examination request under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to delay departmental proceedings until the conclusion of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the independence of the different types of proceedings. The court directed the Inquiry Officer to consider the petitioner's request for cross-examination under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the right to cross-examination in departmental inquiries.

---

---

Issues:
- Request for keeping departmental proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of criminal proceedings.
- Rejection of request for cross-examination under CBLR.

Analysis:
1. Request for keeping departmental proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of criminal proceedings:
The petitioner sought to delay the departmental proceedings initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) until the criminal proceedings before the VIII Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai were concluded. The court held that criminal, departmental, and civil proceedings are independent, each serving distinct purposes with different standards of proof and objectives. It was emphasized that the departmental proceedings need not be stayed until the criminal case is resolved, rejecting the petitioner's contention.

2. Rejection of request for cross-examination under CBLR:
The petitioner's request for cross-examination under Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR was denied by the respondents, citing the existence of sufficient corroborative evidence. However, the court found the reasons for rejection to be vague and lacking specific details on the corroborative evidence presented. The court referred to Regulation 17(1) to 17(4) of the CBLR, emphasizing that if a request for cross-examination is made, the appropriate authority must consider it and allow cross-examination unless valid reasons are recorded for refusal. The court directed the Inquiry Officer to entertain the petitioner's request for cross-examination within two weeks and proceed with the inquiry accordingly.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a request for cross-examination within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the CBLR. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to regulatory requirements in conducting departmental inquiries, emphasizing the right to cross-examination as a fundamental aspect of natural justice.

---