Legal principle

An order of dismissal passed without granting a specifically requested personal hearing—despite pending parallel criminal discharge and customs appellate proceedings—violates the principles of natural justice, and such violation entitles the High Court to interfere under Articles 226/227 notwithstanding the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

Court decision

The petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner: the Order in Original No. 01/2025 dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure-A) dismissing him from service was set aside, and the matter was remitted to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, with the petitioner directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 18.05.2026 without awaiting further notice and with liberty to submit additional pleadings/documents, subject to the respondent providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondent's alternative-remedy objection was rejected.

Facts

The petitioner, a Superintendent of Central Tax (North West Commissionerate, Bengaluru), was dismissed from service by Order in Original No. 01/2025 dated 10.11.2025 following disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge memorandum dated 10.10.2023. The proceedings arose out of an alleged attempted illegal export of red sanders (Shipping Bill No. 2190821 dated 03.06.2021), in which the petitioner, as a customs officer, was accused of abetting illicit export by furnishing a false examination report for monetary consideration (allegedly demanding Rs. 8 lakhs, receiving Rs. 5 lakhs, and arranging Rs. 6 lakhs through hawala, per the statement of Shri Satish Kumar T). Parallel criminal proceedings in Special CC No. 29/2023 (Sections 120-B/420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) were pending, with his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. reserved for orders. Three days before the dismissal order, the petitioner requested a personal hearing (representation dated 07.11.2025) citing the pending discharge application and his pending customs appeal; the department declined and passed the dismissal order without adverting to the request. Subsequently, the Special Court discharged him on 14.01.2026, and the customs appellate authority by order dated 30.12.2025 remanded the Order-in-Original dated 15.04.2025 (penalties under Sections 114/114AA of the Customs Act) for de novo adjudication under Section 128A(3).

Key provisions

• Section 114AA, Customs Act, 1962 — Penalty for use of false and incorrect material
• Section 155, Customs Act, 1962 — Protection of action taken under the Act
• Section 114(i), Customs Act, 1962 — Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly etc
• Section 110, Customs Act, 1962 — Seizure of goods, documents and things
• Regulation 10(n), Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 — Obligations of Customs Broker
• Section 113(e), Customs Act, 1962 — Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported
• Section 7, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Offence relating to public servant being bribed.
• Rule 6(1), Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 — Form of Appeals, etc., to the Appellate Tribunal
• Section 129, Customs Act, 1962 — Appellate Tribunal
• Rule 9, Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 — Qualifications for authorised representatives
• Section 106, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to stop and search conveyances
• Section 105, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to search premises