KRISHNA SHIPPING AGENCY Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The order-in-original dated 23rd of April, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration), Customs House, Kolkata under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and non-adherence of the procedure required by the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the enquiry report. The authority granted a licence to the petitioner to the act as customs house agents under the Regulation 9 of the aforesaid regulation. The Commissioner of Customs subsequently suspended the said licence on one or more grounds incorporated in Regulation 13 of the said regulation and an enquiry office was appointed who conduct the enquiry and in his report he found the petitioner not guilty of violating of any of the conditions enshrined under Regulation 13 of the said Act. In terms of Regulation 22(5) of the said regulation enquiry report was submitted to the Commissioner of Customs who is a disciplinary authority. It is not in dispute that before proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings the report of the enquiry officer was submitted and/or furnished to the petitioner. By the impugned order the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and proceeded to impose the penalty in the form of revocation of licence.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the disciplinary authority did not communicate to the petitioner the reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report as such disagreement sees the light of the day in the impugned order. According to the petitioner the disciplinary authority should not have acted by giving surprise to the petitioner for disagreement without letting him know the points of the disagreement so that the petitioner would be in a position to controvert the points of disagreement and is further made aware of the points required to be met in the disciplinary proceedings, indisputably the disciplinary authority did not communicate the points of disagreement to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and, therefore, did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner to put his defence against the points of disagreement.

(3.) Reliance can be conveniently made upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Mishra, 1998 7 SCC 84wherein it is held that where an enquiry officer submitted a report and held that the delinquent officer is not guilty, the disciplinary authority, if proposes to differ with the conclusion arrived by the enquiry officer, should afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner indicating the points of differences before proceeding with the disciplinary proceeding.