Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Advocate V. Mr. K. Paul, Central Government Counsel

WP(C)/4791/2008

AI Insights

The case revolves around a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, who was serving as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar. The proceeding was based on perceived lapses during the adjudication of a block assessment case, which the departmental authorities considered as misconduct. The Central Administrative Tribunal initially allowed the proceeding to continue but stayed the final orders pending the outcome of related appeals. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal later dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, which led to the petitioner challenging the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding. The High Court of Guwahati, after reviewing the developments, concluded that the disciplinary proceeding was no longer valid and quashed the office memorandum initiating it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821039 (HC-GUWAHATI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K TIWARI
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Departmental inquiry; Disciplinary Proceeding; Due diligence; Income tax appellate tribunal; Misconduct
• Section: 14; 253

Judgement Text

"WP(C) 4791/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Amitava Roy, J The subject matter of challenge in the instant proceeding under Article 226 of t he Constitution of India is the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008, passed by t he learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (for short hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No.388/2002. Thereby, the petitione r/applicant’s assailment of the memorandum F. No. C-1401/5/2002-V&L, dated 28.10 .2002, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Fin ance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, initiating a discipl inary proceeding under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Co ntrol and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (for short hereafter also referred to as the Rule s) was, in essence, negated, but making it subject to the outcome of the appeals preferred against the order dated 13.08.2001 by the petitioner as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubaneswar in IT Appeal No.196/Ors/2001-02. The learned Tribunal, however, parted with the observation that in case the sta nd of the applicant gets support of I.T. Appellate Tribunal, then the Department al Proceeding initiated by the respondents (against the Applicant) would automat ically stand dropped. In this factual conspectus, the learned Tribunal permitte d the respondent to further the departmental proceeding against the applicant le aving them at liberty to pass final orders only after disposal of the appeals af orestated. We have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Paul , learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. The facts in bare essential necessary for the disposal of the instant petition a re that the petitioner in the capacity of Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Buhubeneswar, decided IT Appeal No. 196/Ors/2001-02 in a block assessment case o f one Karunakar Mohanty and by his order dated 13.8.2001 partly allowed the same . Cross appeals were filed against this adjudication by the assessee and the rev enue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, under sec tion 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Apart therefrom, the departmental authorit ies perceiving certain lapses on the part of the petitioner in course of the afo rementioned adjudication to constitute a misconduct stemming from want of due di ligence in the discharge of his duties, by the office memorandum dated 28.10.200 2 referred to herein initiated a departmental proceeding under Rule 14 of the Ru les on the article of charges accompanying the same. Though, the petitioner, as required, submitted his written statement denying the charges, as the department al authorities were inclined to proceed in the matter, he approached the learned Tribunal with the challenge as aforesaid. It is submitted at the Bar that meanwhile, the cross appeals filed by the revenu e as well as the assessee against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2001, passe d by the petitioner as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubeneswar have been disposed of by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cu ttack on 23.06.2011, dismissing the appeal of the revenue and allowing that of t he assessee. Thereby, the learned appellate forum, as its decision discloses, gr anted to the assessee also reliefs that had been declined by the petitioner in d eciding the appeal before him. Mr. Tiwari, has urged that in view of the disposal of the appeals by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, whereby, the appeal of t he revenue before it had been dismissed and the one by the assessee has been all owed, in terms of the operative operation of the judgment and order of the learn ed Tribunal, the departmental proceeding has been rendered non est and, thus, th e office memorandum dated 28.10.2002 ought to be set aside and quashed. The lear ned counsel has argued that judicial intervention in face of the above developme nt is called for as the respondent authorities seem to be inclined to further th e disciplinary proceeding even in the teeth of the disposal of the appeals by th e learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, though the fact um thereof has been brought to their notice by the petitioner. In endorsement of this plea, Mr. Tiwari has laid before us, amongst others, copies of the orders dated 08.06.2012 and 20.06.2012 of the Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries & Inquiring Authority (IA). Mr. Paul on being confronted with the documents aforesaid sought time to obtain instructions from the departmental authorities in the attendant facts and circum stances. Time was duly granted and the learned Central Government Counsel has re turned to submit that though the communications/orders passed before this Court have, meanwhile, been forwarded to the appropriate authorities, no response is y et forthcoming. On being queried by us, Mr. Paul, however, has not been able to refute the disposal of the appeals aforementioned by the Income Tax Appellate Tr ibunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue again st the adjudication made by the petitioner in the capacity of Commissioner of In come Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhubeneswar on which the departmental proceeding is founde d. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts as well as the documents on record, we are of the view that the ine scapable conclusion, in view of the quoted extract of the operative direction of the learned Tribunal is that the departmental inquiry sought to be initiated by the office memorandum dated 28.10.2002 has been rendered non est. Noticeably, t hough the respondents had been conditionally permitted by the learned Tribunal t o further the disciplinary proceeding of the petitioner subject to the outcome o f the appeals with the unequivocal observation that in case the petitioner’s dec ision is affirmed by the learned Appellate Forum, the disciplinary proceeding wo uld automatically stand dropped, they (respondents) chose not to assail its deci sion either before this Court or any other appropriate higher forum. In other wo rds, the respondents accepted the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008, rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in absolute ter ms. In that view of the matter, in the face of the admitted disposal of the appe als by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, dismis sing the appeal of the revenue preferred against the adjudication made by the pe titioner and allowing the one filed by the assessee, the inevitable consequence thereof, has to be annulment of the disciplinary proceeding sought to be initiat ed by the office memorandum dated 28.10.2002 for all intents and purposes. Readi ng between the lines, the operative operation of the judgment and order dated 19 .06.2008 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahat i spell out this inevitable consequence. The petition is, thus, allowed. The disciplinary proceeding based on the office memorandum dated 28.10.2002 (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition) stands quashed. Needless to say, this memorandum too is also declared to be non est in law. No c osts. "