Case Law Details
Alka Rajvanshi Jain Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Since the inquiry had already been completed and the applicant had also filed her representation on the Inquiry Report, UPSC advice had also been given to the applicant to submit her representation, the applicant has had the opportunity to put forward her case including all relevant evidence and documents in support of her defence. Thus the disciplinary proceedings were at the final stage and the Charge Memorandum had been rightly issued.
Held: Assessee challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (Tribunal) in Original Application whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the challenge on the Charge Memorandum. Assessee was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur. While working so, she was issued a letter dated April 06, 2016, by the respondents, calling upon her to submit her version in connection with the disposal of the appeal decided by her on February 13, 2015, in the case of M/s Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited for Assessment Year 2011-12. Assessee submitted her reply explaining the order passed in the said appeal. It was also her stand that the order passed by her had been subsequently upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), vide its order dated January 11, 2017. A Charge Memorandum was issued to her by the respondents, proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules of 1965‟), wherein, three Articles of Charge were framed against assessee. Assessee stated that the charges levelled against her could not be construed as misconduct which required imposition of a major penalty by conducting disciplinary proceedings, as the order was passed by her in discharge of quasi-judicial functions as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The respondent stated that the Charge Memorandum had been issued by the disciplinary authority after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. They justified the issuance of a Charge Memorandum. It was the case of assessee before the Tribunal that the mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law committed by a quasi-judicial officer while exercising lawful jurisdiction could not be made the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Charge Memorandum issued upon assessee, should have clearly contained allegations against assessee that the order passed by her revealed misconduct on her part. It was held that pursuant to the issuance of Charge Memorandum dated September 26, 2017, the disciplinary proceedings had been completed. The UPSC advice had also come. Assessee had been given a copy of the UPSC advice and Inquiry Report. She had also submitted her representation on the Inquiry Report. If that be so, the proceedings were at the final stage. Unfortunately, neither the copy of the report of the inquiry officer nor the UPSC advice and the representation made by assessee, had been placed on the record of this Court for the reasons best known. This Court instead of deciding the pleas itself, the disciplinary authority should first consider the same by keeping in view, the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts, along with criteria laid down by CVC vide its Circular dated October 24, 2016, without being influenced by any conclusion drawn by us in this judgment and pass a final order. If the disciplinary authority agreed with the pleas of assessee, then it should close the proceedings. But if the disciplinary authority was of the view that the Charge Memorandum had been rightly issued, the disciplinary authority should pass a reasoned order in the manner directed by us in that regard, so also on the Inquiry report. High Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated April 20, 2022 passed by the xCentral Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application being 1895/2018, (‘OA’, for short), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. by stating in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20, as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
