Smt. Ch.Rajasiri, W/o Ch.Vijaya Sekhar, aged about 59 years, Occ- Retd. Income Tax Officer (Audit) (Gr. \\u2018B\\u2019 Gaz ) V. The Union of India, Rep. by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. and Telangana Regions and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) and Ms. M.Narmada, Inquiry Officer/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hyderabad

WP/24123/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Ch. Rajasiri, a retired Income Tax Officer, who filed two writ petitions challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The first petition (W.P. No. 24123 of 2024) challenged the interlocutory order dated 18-08-2021 which denied her interim relief, and the second petition (W.P. No. 18738 of 2024) challenged the final order dated 10-06-2024 which directed the completion of the departmental inquiry within three months. The petitioner argued that the departmental proceedings should not continue simultaneously with the criminal proceedings against her on the same facts. The respondents contended that there is no legal bar against simultaneous proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697922 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PASALA PONNA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Criminal Proceedings; Departmental Proceedings; Income Tax Officer; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NOS: 24123 AND 18738 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 24123 OF 2024 Between: Smt. Ch.Rajasiri, W/o Ch.Vijaya Sekhar, aged about 59 years, Occ- Retd. Income Tax Officer (Audit) (Gr. ‘B’ Gaz ) Siva tower, 4th Floor, Danavaipet, Rajahmahendravaram, R/o. D.No.65-5-18, Flat No.A-5, 5th Floor, Ganesh Residency Raghavendra Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. and Telangana Regions, 8th Floor, A-Block, I.T. Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), 8th Floor, IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 3. Ms. M.Narmada, Inquiry Officer/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-!, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in^ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 18-08-2021 in O.A/020/0134/2021 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad as contrary to the principles laid down in decided cases and contrary to the Office Memorandum on the subject and consequently grant stay of further proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 23-07-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: - WRIT PETITION NO: 18738 OF 2024 Between: Smt. Ch.Rajasiri, W/o. Ch.Vijaya Sekhar, aged about 59 years, Occ Retd. Income Tax Officer (Audit) (Gr. ‘B’ Gaz.), Siva tower, 4th Floor, Danavaipet, Rajahmahendravaram, R/o.D.No.65-5-18, Flat No.A-5, Floor, Ganesh Residency, Raghavendra Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax A.P. and Telangana Regions, 8th floor, A-Block, l.T. Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), 8th Floor, IT towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. ' 3. Ms. M.Narmada, Inquiry Officer/ Additiional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hyderabad. ...Respondents ' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records of Order dated 10-06-2024 in O.A/020/0134/2021 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the by granting stay of further proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum dated 23-07-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent. same lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of departmental enquiry pursuant to the Memorandum dated 23-07-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: - The Court made the following common order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NOs.24123 & 18738 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: (perHon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for ■ the respondents in both the matters. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved from the initiation of the departmental proceedings against her filed O.A/020/0134/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main ground of challenge to the departmental proceedings was that on the same facts and on the same evidence, the criminal proceedings were also pending against the petitioner. Consequently, the departmental proceedings could not be initiated or run simultaneously. He submits that in the OA, the petitioner’s application for grant of interim relief was rejected by an order dated 18.08.2021. Finally, the OA was disposed of by an order dated 10.06.2024 with a direction to the respondent authorities of the department to conclude the inquiry and pass the final 2 order within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 4. Challenging the interlocutory order dated 18.08.2021, Writ Petition No.24123 of 2024 has been filed and challenging the final order dated 10.06.2024, Writ Petition No.18738 of 2024 has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of challenge has not been considered by the Tribunal and a direction has been given to conclude the enquiry and pass final order, observing that the petitioner was delaying the departmental proceedings by filing representations. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the petitioner’s ground of challenge while deciding the OA finally. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no legal bar for initiation of departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. He submits that both the proceedings proceed simultaneously and departmental proceedings can also be decided. He further submits that the Tribunal granted three months time to conclude the proceedings and the petitioner is approaching belatedly after completion of the time as granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceedings, the enquiry officer has submitted the enquiry report to whjch the petitioner has also submitted the reply. can 7. 3 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the Tribunal has issued direction for the conclusion of the enquiry as the enquiry was initiated in the year 2018 and the direction was to complete within a period of three months. The present petition has been filed after expiry of three months period and that too after the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings which is at the stage of after submission of petitioner’s reply to the enquiry officer’s report. At this stage, we are not inclined to interfere and to entertain the writ petition against the order of the Tribunal. However, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground raised before the Tribunal, as mentioned above, was not considered by the Tribunal. 9. Consequently, to meet the ends of justice, we dispose of both the writ petitions providing that if in the enquiry, the order of penalty is passed against the petitioner and he chooses to avail the remedy against such an order, it will be open for the petitioner to take such plea/ground in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum and if such an occasion arises, such plea shall be duly considered by the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. 4 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending. shall also stand closed. Sd/- U SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER To 1. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax A.P. and Telangana Regions, Union of India, 8th Floor, A-Block, IT. Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Vijayawada. 3. One CC to Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies GSC . . / HIGH COURT DATED:07/11/2024 ORDER WP.No. 24123 AND 18738 OF 2024 = 16 APR 2025 5'.Current Section ^ a DISPOSING OF THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS "