Case Law Details
Shantam Bose Vs. Union of India (Kerala High Court)
After the initiation of proceedings the petitioner was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as per order dated 12.1.2012. According to him, the factum of his promotion to higher post is indicative of the fact that the official respondents are not considering the charges levelled against him as grave enough to warrant imposition of a penalty of withholding of promotion, even in case they are proved. In fact, a contention on the aforesaid lines is taken up in paragraph 13 of the Original Petition. We are not inclined to accept the said contention. Granting such a promotion cannot be taken as an indicative of the opinion of the competent authority that even in case the charges levelled against him under Annexure-A1 are proved they would not call for imposition of penalty of withholding the promotion. The stage of deciding the question of quantum of penalty would reach, in respect of serious charges, only after conclusion of enquiry, subject to its outcome, consideration of the same by the disciplinary authority and also after receiving the explanation of the delinquent officer on being served with the copy of the enquiry report. At any rate, it cannot be pre-determined in a case of this nature. Various factors may waive with the authorities in granting such promotion pending the disciplinary proceedings. In the case on hand, the materials on record would reveal that even Annexure-A10 was actually served on the petitioner only on 5.7.2012 and he was granted 15 days from the date of receipt of the same to give his version on the issue. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner replied through Annexure-A12 and in Annexure-A12 he had craved leave to amend Annexure-A12, or add other items of information and documents in case it is required to give his version of events and facts in a better manner. In such circumstances, if promotion was granted to him on 12.1.2012, in spite of the issues involved, that by itself is no reason to canvass the position that it was granted to him based on such a conclusion/opinion that even in case he is to be punished based on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings imposition of penalty of withholding the promotion is not warranted. The petitioner is fortunate to obtain such a promotion after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Annexure-A1.
Certainly, that cannot be a reason to raise a contention as aforesaid. Even according to the understanding of the said situation by the petitioner, his case is only that the first respondent is not considering the charge as grave enough to warrant withholding of petitioner’s promotion. Hence, he cannot canvass the position that disciplinary proceedings initiated under Annexure-A1 should be discontinued abruptly, for that reason.
A scanning of the contentions raised in the original petition as also the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner would reveal an attempt on the part of the petitioner to assail the sustainability of the charges on merits, to certain extent. According to the petitioner, the charges contained only ill-founded allegations. We have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had very rightly held that it would be too early, in other words premature, to go into such aspects and essentially, the hollowness or otherwise of the allegations could be found out only in appropriately conducted disciplinary proceedings. At any rate, based on the said fact the petitioner cannot claim for quashment of Annexure-A1 memorandum of charges.
The question whether Annexure-A1 charge sheet is to be quashed or not was considered by the Tribunal with reference to a catena of decisions, as can be seen from the impugned order. According to us, the Tribunal has rightly referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr. ((2010) 13 SCC 311) to decide on that issue. The Apex Court held therein that normally, a charge sheet could not be quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that facts stated in the charge are erroneous. Correctness or truthfulness of the charge is a matter to be found out by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors v. Upendra Singh ((1994) 3 SCC 357) to support its view. After referring to certain other decisions as well, evidently, the Tribunal opined that in a case where charge sheet is issued without jurisdiction or that it is wholly illegal it could be interfered with. At the same breath, evidently, the Tribunal held that in the case on hand Annexure-A1 is not attacked on the ground that it was issued without jurisdiction and that it was wholly illegal. Annexure-A1 is only the rightful conclusions arrived at based on the binding judicial pronouncements and in view of the factual situation obtained in this case. In view of our finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner under Annexure-A1 are very serious and there is no inordinate or unexplained delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings and also that the allegations are of such nature that they call for an enquiry, we are of the considered view that adverting to the contentions touching the merits of the issue and making any observation may ultimately prove prejudicial to the petitioner. Hence, we are refraining ourselves from doing so.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
