BOBBILI JAGADEESWARA RAO V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14008/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a petitioner, a Senior Tax Assistant in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada, who was accused of demanding illegal gratification. A criminal case was registered against him by the C.B.I. under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Concurrently, a departmental enquiry was initiated. The petitioner sought to delay the departmental proceedings until the criminal trial concluded, arguing that simultaneous proceedings would prejudice his defense. His requests were initially turned down by the disciplinary authority and later by the C.A.T., leading to the current writ petition challenging the C.A.T.'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 745474 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Abeyance; Criminal Case; Departmental Enquiry; Disciplinary Proceedings; Illegal gratification
• Section: 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 120-B; 120-B

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT.PETITION.No.14008 of 2023 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an employee working as Senior Tax Assistant Group-C in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada. A case in F.I.R.No.RC.No.15(A)/2017, was registered against him on 27.09.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 7 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The said case was registered against him on the ground that he has demanded illegal gratification from the complainant to do official favour to him. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the ground that he has resorted to the act of misconduct of demanding illegal gratification for doing official favour. 3. The petitioner has made a request before the disciplinary authority to stall the proceedings of the departmental enquiry till the trial of the criminal case is concluded on the ground that as both the criminal case and the departmental enquiry is based on the same allegation that it would cause prejudice to his defence, if the 2 departmental enquiry is conducted before the trial of the criminal case is concluded. The said request was turned down by the disciplinary authority. 4. Aggrieved thereby, he has filed O.A.No.683 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (C.A.T.). The same was also dismissed. Challenging the validity of the said order of the C.A.T., he has filed W.P.No.22769 of 2021 before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. As the criminal case was pending before the C.B.I. Court at Hyderabad, at that time, he has approached the High Court of Telangana. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court of Telangana, as per order dated 17.09.2021, whereby, the High Court has ordered to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance for a period of one year and by that time if the criminal proceedings are not concluded, it is held that it is open to the Department to take a decision in the matter. 5. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings are kept in abeyance for a period of one year. 6. As the trial in the criminal case could not be concluded within the period of one year, the disciplinary authority has been proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the petitioner has again approached the C.A.T. seeking direction to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance 3 till the disposal of the criminal case. The C.A.T., by the impugned order, has declined to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance as sought for. The C.A.T. has mainly rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the High Court of Telangana has already ordered in W.P.No.22769 of 2021, to keep the departmental proceedings kept in abeyance only for a period of one year, with a direction that, if by that date, if the criminal proceedings are not concluded, that it is open to the Department to take a decision in the matter. So, the C.A.T. held that the Department is now at liberty to proceed with the enquiry by taking an appropriate decision as the criminal proceedings are not concluded within the period of one year. 8. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the C.A.T. The petitioner has already approached the High Court of Telangana and the order was passed keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance only for a period of one year with a rider that if the criminal proceedings are not concluded within one year, that it is open to the Department to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, in terms of the said direction of the High Court of Telangana, the Department has now taken a decision to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as the trial in the criminal case is not concluded within one year. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the disciplinary authority. 4 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now suffering from heart ailment and he has been admitted in the hospital and taking treatment and sought direction to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance. It is not a valid ground to stall the disciplinary proceedings. 10. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that, already the High Court of Telangana has passed an appropriate order earlier in the writ petition that was filed by the petitioner, we do not find any valid legal ground to admit the writ petition. 11. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 16.06.2023 ARR/KBN 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT.PETITION.No.14008 of 2023 Date: 16-06-2023 ARR/KBN "