Union Of India And Others vs Naman Singh Sekhawat

1. Respondent at all material times was working as a Sub-Inspector (AICO-II). He was posted in the Intelligence Bureau. His principal function was to identify and collect sources of information from the locality in regard to anti national activities.

2. On or about 5th August, 1983, the respondent accompanied by the driver of an official jeep bearing Registration No. RSN 939, went to a place known as 'Ramsar Gagaria Road' in the District of Barmer. There, he allegedly found a large number of smuggled goods. While bringing the same in his jeep for their delivery to the Customs Authorities it was intercepted by a Jonga Jeep, which was being driven by one Bhoor Singh, a known smuggler, accompanied by the Head Constable Bhori Das and Constable Kirta Ram of the concerned Police Station. They were brought to the Police Station and arrested inter alia on the charge that the respondent, in conspiracy with the smugglers had been taking the smuggled goods in his official jeep.

4. In the proceeding under Section 112 of the Customs Act, the defence of the respondent inter alia was that, finding some smuggled goods stranded and abandoned while he was on a tour from near Village Gagaria, he loaded the same in the said Jeep No. RSM-939 for necessary action in relation thereto by the Customs Authorities. However, in the meantime, they were intercepted by the police authorities.

5. The driver of the vehicle Mool Singh supported the said contention of the respondent. The Additional Collector, Customs and Central Excise, upon consideration of the materials on record by the parties thereto held :-

On the basis of the aforesaid findings, whereas the goods of the foreign origin were directed to be confiscated, the charges against the respondent, Mool Singh and one Latif were dropped.

6. In the criminal proceeding against the respondent, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses including the informant Bhori Das, PW-6 and Constable Kirta Ram, PW-7. The charges were found to have not been proved. It was inter alia held that no case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code had been made out as the respondent was not entrusted with the said goods. In regard to the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, no offence was found to have been committed by the respondent, as he was in possession of an Arm to which he was entitled to. So far as the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, a judgment of acquittal was recorded stating :-

7. The State accepted the said judgment. No appeal was preferred thereagainst. Long thereafter, namely on 1st May, 1982, for reasons best known to the appellant, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent on two articles of charges which read as under :-

12. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The appellate authority dismissed the said appeal by a detailed judgment dated 17th April, 2000, stating:-

13. Respondent preferred an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench questioning the said order of the disciplinary authority. By a judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2001, the Tribunal, upon considering the material at some details, held :-

17. The alleged occurrence took place on 5th August, 1983. As he was arrested in connection with the said matter, he must have been placed under suspension. The proceeding under the Customs Act came to an end on 17th March, 1986. He was acquitted in the criminal case on 11th July, 1991. The Department was aware of the said proceedings. They were aware of his defence. It has not been denied or disputed that obtaining intelligence reports as regard anti smuggling activities was one of his functions. It is one thing to say that in discharge of the said function he was over enthusiastic but it is another thing to say that he hatched a conspiracy to assist the smugglers in carrying out smuggling activities.

No evidence had been adduced to bring home the charge of criminal conspiracy, which is an independent crime.

That the respondent was allotted a jeep and also allowed to carry with him the official revolver, was accepted by the prosecution side in the criminal case, and thus, he was found not guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

34. For the abovesaid reasons, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

35. Before parting, we may, however, notice that the respondent was reinstated in service. However, after the order of stay was granted by this Court on 27th March, 2006, his services had again been terminated. He is, therefore, directed to be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits. The order of the Tribunal must be complied with in its entirety forthwith. Respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal which is assessed at Rupees One Lakh.