Shiv Kumar S/O Shri Ram Singh V. Union of India, through the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa Region

WP/23388/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shiv Kumar, a petitioner and employee of the Income Tax Department, challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore. The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's orders which permitted the respondent department to revisit his promotion under certain circumstances. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing arguments from both sides, dismissed the writ petition, agreeing with the Tribunal's decision that while the promotion could be reviewed, there was no absolute bar against such a review, and the department was not mandated to re-evaluate the promotion.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803882 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHUBHA S
• Assessee Lawyers: TARSEM GUPTA
• Keywords: Due Process; Income Tax Department; Promotion; Writ petition; Review of Promotion
• Section: 652/2019; 14/2022

Judgement Text

" - 1 - WP No. 23388 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23388 OF 2022 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: SHIV KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, O/O THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHUBHA.S, CGC FOR R1 & R2.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT ORDER DATED 03/10/2019 IN OA NO.652/2019 AND DATED 03/11/2022 IN RA NO.14/2022 PASSED BY THE CAT BENCH BANGALORE (SHIV KUMAR VS. UOI AND OTHERS) ANNEXURES-A AND B MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE, THE WP MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED RESTORING THE ORIGINAL RESULT ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 23388 of 2022 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner would contend that the department rules would stipulate that once a person is declared passed and granted promotion, the promotion cannot be revised or revisited except in certain specific circumstances. That none of the circumstances mentioned therein are available but despite the same, the Tribunal has erred in reserving liberty to the respondent department to revisit the promotion after issuing show cause notice and following the due process and hence, the instant writ petition. 3. The contention canvassed is considered and therein lies the answer to the query raised by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is an absolute bar, prohibiting the respondents from reviewing the order of promotion. 4. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order reverting the petitioner and further directing him to be reinstated in the same post and - 3 - WP No. 23388 of 2022 thereafter, reserving liberty to the respondent department to review the promotion by following due process of law cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal has merely reserved a right and there is no mandate to the respondents to positively redo or review the order of promotion. 5. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no cause of action for the instant writ petition. The order on O.A. and the order on the review application which reiterates the same, in our opinion call for no interference. Order being a well reasoned order, we do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As if any, do not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CHS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 "