Union of India & Others v. P.K. Sharma
(2017) 354 ELT 181
In the High Court of Delhi
Civil WP No. 6984 of 2009
Before Justice G.S. Sistani and Justice Vinod Goel
Decided on June 28, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Faulty information fed in computer systems.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Rule 14)
• The Customs Act, 1962 (Section 17)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondent was an Inspector at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. He gave a false examination report in the EDI system with respect to a bill.
• The examination report was fed through the computer logging of the respondent whose password was in the custody of the respondent only. It was filed by M/s Intertrade Incorporated, Noida stating that the imported goods were ‘Plastic Buttons’ valued at Rs.56,531/-. By verifying the packet, it was found to be intact and in its original packing. Goods on examination were found to be cellular phones along with batteries and chargers valued at Rs. 74,80,000/-.
• On the day of the incident, he was allotted the bills of entry ending with digits of 2 & 3 and the bill of entry under dispute ended with digit 0. Therefore, this bill of entry was not allotted to him. In contrary to that, it was pointed out that there is no such restriction on the computer as to the bill of entry which is accepted and from logging in of the respondent.
• The examination report of a particular bill of entry number 724870 was in between the examination report of the other two bills of entry bearing numbers 723303 & 724583 from the same logging of the computer. The EDI system maintains a log of each officer who works on the system.
• The respondent was charged under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for false examination report entered by him with respect to the bill. The respondent denied the charges under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and so an appeal was filed.
• The appeal was filed by the respondent before the Commissioner of Central Excise on October 19, 2005 against which the respondent filed the O.A No.2850/2005.
• The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the Bill of Entry. It was neither made available to the respondent nor was its copy produced during the enquiry proceedings which caused prejudice to the respondent. The petitioners challenged this order of the Tribunal in this petition.

Opinion of the Bench

• The respondent claimed that his password was misused by some other person and the examination report was fed by the other person. The plea does not appear to be correct. 14 bills of entry were examined from 1:21 PM to 6:00 PM and the respondent did not log off from the system. The bill of entry No. 724870 was examined at 04:43 PM. Thus the plea that feeding of examination report in respect of this bill of entry by some other person by using his password is not acceptable.
• The Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that prejudice was caused to the respondent because of the non-supply of the original Bill of Entry. He did not log out from 1:21 PM till 6:00 PM and the impugned Bill of Entry was fed in at 4:43 PM.
• Further, the respondent had also nowhere denied entering the examination report of Bill of Entry No. 723303 and 724583 through his system.
• In the present case, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were indeed based on evidence and material. The Disciplinary Authority had come to the conclusion that the fact that the examination report regarding the impugned Bill of Entry was fed from his account in the computer EDI system was circumstantial evidence cannot be denied.
• Further, the respondent had claimed that his password could have been misused by someone as there were many people working in his office and the same could have been found out by someone as he used to login and logout of his system many times every day.
• No prejudice was shown because of the non-supply of the original Bill of Entry and circumstantial evidence found against the respondent was not rebutted by him. After applying the test of ‘preponderance of probability’ to the present case, the Disciplinary Authority was correct in reaching the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of misconduct.

Final Decision

• The bench allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal.