Negligence without ill intent held not to be ‘Misconduct’: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Transaction Charges - Stock Exchange - Bombay High Court - Taxscan

The Bombay High Court in a writ petition in the name of Satyendra Singh Gurjar v Union of India before it held that an act on the part of the petitioner as a result of negligence and carelessness falls short of ‘misconduct’

The petitioner in the present case is recruiter as an Appraiser (Customs) in the Civil Services Examination, 1996 and later was posted at Mumbai Docks whereby he performed duty at STP (i.e. one of the node/point of Mumbai Docks). After the petitioner had cleared a consignment, it was found out that a large variety of wristwatches were concealed in the declared imported goods by non-declaration of the same on the Bill of Entry. Further, the petitioner made a false report of examination despite the said consignment not being detained in the area under his jurisdiction. The same led to an inquiry upon the petitioner.

The petitioner is before the present Court against the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai finding petitioner guilty of misconduct under Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and imposing a penalty of reducing the pay of the petitioner by three stages for the period of one year, without cumulative effect.

The issue in the present case is whether the petitioner can be said to have committed misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

The Coram constituting of Justice Ranjit More and Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the circumstance, considered in conjunction with the 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’.

It has been observed that If the element of the 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 a 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 gross negligence as would constitute misconduct.

Further that there was no intent on part of the petitioner to either assist the importer nor there was any intent to cause wrongful loss to the revenue (of the government).

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
taxscan-loader