P.S. SACHDEV, I.R.S. V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/4750/2010

AI Insights

The case involves P.S. Sachdev, the petitioner, who challenged the 'Censure' penalty imposed on him by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities for failing to mention a crucial detail in an appraisal report during his tenure as Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar. The detail pertained to the search and seizure of jewelry from a locker, which allegedly resulted in revenue loss due to the applicant-petitioner's oversight. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his initial challenge, leading to this writ petition. The High Court, while agreeing with the Tribunal's decision on the imposition of the penalty, modified the impact of the 'Censure' on the applicant-petitioner's future promotions, equating it to a 'Warning'.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 732038 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Parma Nanda, Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution, Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RENU BALA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: D S PATWALIA
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Disciplinary Authority; Revenue Loss; Technical Flaw; Censure
• Section: 16

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.10.2010 P.S. Sachdev …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present: Mr.D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5. None for respondent No. 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 12.7.2007 (P-25), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal) dismissing the Original Application filed by the applicant-petitioner. Before the Tribunal the applicant-petitioner has challenged orders dated 5.9.2006 and 27.10.2006 (P-20 & P-21) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority respectively inflicting upon him the C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 punishment of ‘Censure’ 2. On 18.5.2005, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, ‘the CCS Rules’) was served upon the applicant-petitioner with the allegation that while holding the charge of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar, he had processed the case of one Dr. Atul Kapoor for search and prepared an appraisal report. He failed to make a mention in the appraisal report about the search of one locker No. 2998 in Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, and recovery of jewellery from the said locker, which was in the name of Smt. Anita Kapoor and her brother. Eventually it was found that due to aforesaid laxity on the part of the applicant-petitioner block assessment in the case of Smt. Anita Kapoor could not be made, which resulted in releasing of the seized jewellery. In this manner, revenue loss has occurred. 3. In his reply the applicant-petitioner admitted the factum of having prepared the appraisal report in the said case, which was forwarded by him to the D.I.T. (Investigation), Ludhiana, on 24.8.1998 for approval. The explanation tendered by the applicant-petitioner was that the jewellery was seized by the Investigation Wing, Delhi and till the date of making of the appraisal report neither the file was handed over to him nor was any official information sent to him. In the departmental inquiry, the contention raised by the applicant-petitioner was not accepted holding him guilty on the basis of un-controverted fact that he had failed to mention the details regarding the seizure of locker in Delhi in his appraisal report. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose a minor penalty upon the applicant-petitioner and the matter was referred to the Union Public Service Commission (for brevity, ‘the Commission’) for seeking statutory advise, which was received on 5.9.2006. 2 C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 The following issues were considered by the Commission, as is evident from the communication dated 5.9.2006 (P-20):- “(i) C.O. had to hand over charge and leave for Patna at short notice to take up an important assignment there; (ii) C.O. had informed his successor about the search of the locker in Delhi and the fact that the file pertaining to the search had not yet been received. (iii) C.O.'s successor followed it up with DIT (Inv) Delhi with some difficulty finally succeeded in getting the file pertaining to the search. (iv) All the senior officers dealing with the case were fully aware of the search of the locker at Delhi. (v) C.O. had recorded that case of Anita Kapoor should also be investigated. (vi) The jewellery seized from the Delhi locker was subsequently found to be owned by the HUF of which Anita Kapoor's husband Inderjit Kapoor was the 'Karta' and this jewellery had been declared in the wealth tax returns of the HUF regularly from 1987-88 onwards; (vii) The jewellery in question was duly examined in the course of assessment of the Group and the version of the assessee Group in respect of the jewellery in question was accepted by the Department; and (viii) The release order issued by CIT clearly said that this jewellery was an explained asset.” 4. The Commission opined that though there was no loss caused to 3 C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 the revenue and there was no suppression of information on the part of the applicant-petitioner. However, it has been concluded that there was a technical flaw on the part of the applicant-petitioner because he did not mention about the search of the locker in the appraisal report. The Commission, thus, advised that a penalty of ‘Censure’ be imposed upon him (P-20). Acting upon the advise received from the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 27.10.2006 (P-21) holding the applicant-petitioner guilty of the misconduct and imposed a penalty of ‘Censure’ upon him. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-petitioner filed O.A. No. 46/PB/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the OA finding that the procedure prescribed under the CCS Rules has been religiously followed and that in exercise of judicial review a Court/Tribunal could not interfere with the quantum of punishment where the same is not arbitrary or utterly perverse. In that regard, reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that in the case of one Shri Vijay Kumar Karan, who was also charge sheeted on similar grounds, he was let off with a simple ‘warning’ to be careful in future, whereas the applicant-petitioner has been given a different punishment of ‘censure’ for similar charges. In that regard, the Tribunal has extracted the following observations made by their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 371: “Merely because one officer was wrongly given the lesser punishment compared to others against whom there is a proved 4 C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 misconduct, it cannot be held that they too should also be given the lesser punishment lest the same mistaken view would be repeated. Omission to repeat same mistake would not be violative of Article 14 and cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory leading to miscarriage of justice. It may be open to the appropriate higher authority to look into the matter and take appropriate decision according to law.” 5. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner reiterated the same argument before us urging that a Senior Officer, who was charged on similar ground, had been let off by issuance of ‘Warning’, whereas under similar circumstances the applicant-petitioner has been given a minor penalty of ‘Censure’ even though, the Commission has in clear terms opined that there was no loss to the revenue and there was only a technical flaw. Even the successor of the applicant-petitioner has been let off by issuing ‘Warning’. 6. Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the inquiry has been completed as per procedure laid down under the CCS Rules. The Commission has also given an advice after due application of mind for imposition of penalty of ‘Censure’, which has been duly accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. She has further argued that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal upholding the punishment awarded to the applicant-petitioner calls for no interference being a well reasoned order and in consonance with the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Parma Nanda (supra) and Balbir Chand (supra). She has submitted that if one of the officers was wrongly given lesser punishment, the applicant-petitioner cannot plead discrimination claiming that he should 5 C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 also be given the same punishment. However, Ms. Sharma could not point out any significant difference between the punishment of ‘Censure’ and ‘Warning’. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the order dated 12.7.2007 (P-25), passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court to the extent mentioned hereinafter. However, when we examine the meanings of expressions ‘Censure’ and ‘Warning’ then it leads to the conclusion that both of them virtually mean the same thing. The only difference is that ‘Censure’ is used in the rules whereas the expression ‘Warning’ has not been used as such in the rules. According to the ‘New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary’ (1996 Edition), the expressions ‘Warning’, ‘Censure’ and ‘Admonish’ have been defined to mean as under: “Warning - 1. The act of one who warns, or that which he communicates; notice of danger. 2. That which warns or admonishes.” “Censure - 1. Disaproval; Condemnation or blame; adverse criticism. 2. Reprimand or discipline by ecclesiastical or political authority. 3. Critical recession of a literary work; revision. 4. Obs. A formal judgment or judicial sentence; opinion.” “Admonish - 1. To advise of a fault; administer mild reproof to. 2. To caution against danger or error; warn, as of something to be avoided: The gallows admonished the citizens against a life of crime. 3. To charge authoritatively; exhort, urge: He admonished 6 C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2010 me to follow him.” 8. In the definition of ‘Warning’, one of the meanings assigned is ‘admonish’ and likewise one of the meaning assigned to ‘Censure’ is ‘reprimand’. When we see the meaning of expression ‘admonish’, it is clear that it is to caution against danger or error or warn as of something to be avoided. Thus, the aforesaid technical meaning of expressions ‘Warning’, ‘Censure’ and ‘Admonish’ would show that these are virtually inter- changeably used in common parlance then ‘Warning’ and ‘Censure’ may stand on the same footing. Therefore, it is held that for the purposes of promotion if warning is not to be taken into account then ‘Censure’ shall also not be taken into account in the case of the applicant-petitioner. To that extent the view of the Tribunal deserves to be modified. Ordered accordingly. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) October 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 7 "