Arcaprava Banerjee vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the charge sheet, being a preliminary step, does not infringe upon any right of the petitioner. It is not an order that adversely affects the petitioner. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Rukma Kesh Mishra, stating that a charge sheet or show cause notice alone does not create a grievance. Interference with a charge sheet is permissible only on limited grounds, such as when the allegations are admitted but do not constitute misconduct, the charge sheet is issued by an incompetent authority, or there is inordinate, unexplained delay. The Court found no fault with the charge sheet on these grounds. Regarding the use of statements, the Court observed that if the department intends to introduce these statements without producing the declarants, the petitioner can raise objections during the departmental inquiry or against the inquiry report. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the charge sheet at this stage. The petitioner was advised to raise all possible grounds during the departmental inquiry. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Arcaprava Banerjee, a Superintendent of CGST & CE, Bolpur, challenged a charge sheet dated January 3, 2023, issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He had previously challenged this charge sheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No.350/326/2023, which was dismissed on April 11, 2023. The petitioner's primary contention was that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, by departmental authorities behind his back, formed the basis of the charge sheet. He argued these statements could not be used against him unless the declarants were made witnesses and examined before the Inquiring Authority, as per a departmental circular dated January 8, 2020. The present petition was filed after the CAT's dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, behind the back of the delinquent employee can form the basis of a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965? (Question of law). 2. Whether a charge sheet is vitiated if statements recorded during investigation are included in Annexure III but the declarants are not listed as witnesses in Annexure IV, contrary to the departmental circular dated January 8, 2020? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the circular dated January 8, 2020). Petitioner's arguments: The statements recorded behind his back were inadmissible. The charge sheet was vitiated due to non-compliance with the departmental circular dated January 8, 2020, which mandates that persons whose statements are relied upon must be made witnesses and examined before the Inquiring Authority. Respondent's argument: The charge sheet can only be interfered with on limited grounds, which are not present in this case, thus no interference is warranted.