Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Maheshkumar B Patel vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 10 February, 2026
::1 :: O.A.No.370/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH.
Original Application No.370/2022
with M.A. Nos.68/2023 and MA No. 19/2024
Ahmedabad, this the 10th day of February, 2026
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Digitally signed by
JITENDRA RAJ
MEHTA
DN: C=IN, O=
CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=
JODHPUR BENCH,
Phone=
1fe52cf9149e9d502fa
Mahesh Kumar Babulal Patel, IRS
JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40
3ee0d4591882f372ef
db7b9922bd,
RA PostalCode=342006,
S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B
A9D18167E0260A2A
1B2AB7E0C85B7E6
MEHTA E19FD988D3007062
B, CN=JITENDRA
RAJ MEHTA
Reason: I am the
author of this
(Civil Code No.09595)
document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.11
14:05:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.1.0
aged 56 years, S/o Sh. Babulal D.Patel
presently serving as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Valsad Circle, Valsad,
Ahmedabad
Bench
presently residing at House No.23/B, Shailesh Park,
Chhatra Road, Navsari - 396 445(Gujarat)
...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S.Rao)
Versus
1. Union of India
notice to be served through its Secretary,
Government of India,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes
to be represented through its Chairman
CBDT, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, IRS
Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad &
the designated Inquiring Authority,
Office of the Pr. CIT-3,
C-410, Pratyaksha-Kar Bhawan,
Ambawadi, Ahmedabad - 380 015.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Gujarat Circle, office of Pr, CCIT, Gujarat,
Room No,206, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 009.
5. Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, IRS
presently serving as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
C/o Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
::2 :: O.A.No.370/2022
6. Union Public Service Commission,
to be represented through its Secretary
UPSC, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110 069 ....... Respondents
(By Advocate:Mr.Chirayu Mehta)
O R D E R
Per : Hon'ble Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
The applicant has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs :
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 ―(A) call upon the official respondents herein to forthwith place before this Hon'ble Tribunal, in original, all the relevant and material documents, which gave rise to the issuance of the Ahmedabad impugned documents at Annexure A/1, Annexure A/2 and Bench Annexure A/3 hereto;
(B) upon a close perusal and scrutiny of the aforesaid original documents, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to :
(B-1) quash and set aside the (i) impugned Charge Memorandum bearing No.C-14011/6/2018-V&L dated 02.02.2018 at annexure A/1 hereto, (ii) the Respondent No.3's impugned I.O. Report dated 20.10.2021 at Annexure A/2 hereto, as also
(iii) the impugned Communication bearing F.No.C- 14011/6/2018-V&L dated 29.03.2022 at Annexure A/3 hereto; (C) issue appropriate direction to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 herein to grant ad hoc as also regular promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax at par with the private respondent No.5 herein with effect from the date when the aforesaid private respondent No.5 herein came to be granted ad hoc and also regular promotion to the grade of JCIT, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears of salary. Etc. flowing therefrom;
(D) grant such other & further relief/s as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.‖
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 The applicant has joined the services to the post of Inspector in the Department of Income Tax on 01.11.1988. Thereafter, he was promoted as Income Tax Officer on 18.06.2001 and was further promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) in ::3 :: O.A.No.370/2022 the year 2010. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) w.e.f. 12.02.2014.
2.2 It is stated that while the applicant was working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), he was served with a Charge Memorandum dated 02.02.2018 (Annex.A/1 impugned herein), issued by the disciplinary authority under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules [for Short "CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
The said Charge Memorandum was issued pursuant to the first Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA stage advise of the CVC dated 23.11.2017 (Annex.A/8).
RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 As per the Article of Charges No.-I, it has been alleged against the Ahmedabad applicant that he took over the charge as Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), Bench Central Range, Surat and on 27.05.2005, he acted in an improper manner and in contravention of the procedure laid down under Rules 38 & 39 of the Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while conducting auction of the shares of "Dandi Salts Pvt. Ltd.,". He did not wait for the mandatory period of fifteen days from the date on which copy of the proclamation was affixed in his office as was required under Rule 14 before conducting the auction.
Further, under Article of Charges-II, it has been alleged that he did not refer to the latest Balance-sheet of M/s Dandi Salts Pvt. Ltd., before conducting the auction on 14.06.2005. Further, it has been alleged that he did not get the reserved price for the shares of the said Pvt. Ltd. company and he did not make any reference to the interest of the said company having the trade mark of "Dandi Salt" for the purposes of arriving at the reserved price, causing undue loss of revenue and a contended gain to the individuals.
Further, under Article of Charges-III, it has been alleged that he did not conduct the auction proceedings as per the procedure laid down since the proclamation of sale resulted in the participation of only two persons which was akin to a "single bid" situation, as far as auction was concerned. Further, he singled out the shares of Dandi Salt Pvt. Ltd for ::4 :: O.A.No.370/2022 sale by an auction completely ignoring the shares of five other companies that were also under attachment.
Further, under Article Charges No.-IV, it has been alleged that he fraudulently printed the share certificates without any authority and thereby acted in an improper manner and in contravention of provisions stipulated in the Rules of 1962 as well the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Along with the said Charge Memorandum dated 02.02.2018, the applicant was supplied with the list of documents by which the articles of charges framed against him proposed to be sustained. In total, Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA seventeen documents (i.e. RUDs), have been referred under the said list RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 of documents i.e. Annex.-III of the Charge Memorandum.
Ahmedabad Further, the applicant has been supplied with a copy of list of the Bench witnesses i.e. Annex.-IV of the Charge Memorandum. Wherein, names of two witnesses have been mentioned i.e. one Shri Naresh K. Meena the then I.T.I. in the O/o TRO, Central Range, Surat and Shri S.S. Seth, the then I.T.I. in the O/o TRO, Central Range, Surat.
2.3 On receipt of the said Charge Memorandum dated 02.02.2018, it has been found by the applicant that the relied upon documents (RUDs) mentioned in Annex.-III and the Statement of Witnesses (Annex.-IV) have not been supplied to him. Therefore, the applicant vide his representation dated 09.04.2018 (Annex.A/9), requested the Disciplinary Authority (DA) to supply the said relied upon documents (RUDs) and the statement of witnesses, to enable him to submit his statement of defence in response to the charge memorandum. However, the disciplinary authority did not responded to the request for supply of the relied upon documents and the statement of the witnesses for long.
Therefore, by way of an another representation dated 25.06.2018 (Annex.A/10), the applicant informed the disciplinary authority that there is an inordinate delay of utmost 13 years in issuing the charge memorandum and the said unreasonable delay, is fatal to disciplinary proceedings as per the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh ::5 :: O.A.No.370/2022 [reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308], therefore, he requested the DA that the charge memorandum may kindly be withdrawn. It has also mentioned in the said representation that in case the disciplinary authority desires to initiate the disciplinary proceedings then inquiry officer may be appointed, so as to complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of six months.
2.4 However, the said representation of the applicant was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority and after lapse of one Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= and half year from the date of issuance the Charge memorandum, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef the DA vide its order dated 07.10.2019 had appointed an Inquiry db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Officer and Presenting Officer to conduct an inquiry against him.
2.5 The departmental inquiry could not be completed by the Inquiry Ahmedabad Bench Officer within the statutory prescribed time-limit of six months and he continued to hold the enquiry till October, 2020 that too without obtaining any extension from the competent disciplinary authority.
2.6 It is stated that during the pendency of the said departmental inquiry, the IO expired in the month of October, 2020, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has nominated a new Inquiry Officer vide its order dated 31.12.2020 with specific (Annex. A/12 refers).
2.7 It is stated that the said order dated 31.12.2020 for nomination of a new I.O. by considering the date i.e. 22.01.2021 of receipt of said nomination by the newly appointed I.O, the departmental inquiry should have been completed on or before 22.07.2021.
However, the IO continued to hold the enquiry beyond the time limit of 21.07.2021 without there being any written approval for extension.
Subsequently, on completion of production of evidence, i.e. on 02.09.2021, the PO had submitted his written brief on 16.09.2021 and on receipt of it; the applicant herein, had submitted his written statements of defence on 30.09.2021 (Annexs. A/13 & A/14 respectively refers) wherein, he had ::6 :: O.A.No.370/2022 objected the proceedings of inquiry on various grounds including that he performed his duties in a quasi judicial authority, the belated initiation of departmental inquiry is not tenable as also he had brought to the knowledge that none of RUDs have been proved by the prosecution witnesses, hence, it is no case of evidence.
2.8 On conclusion of the said departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had submitted his Report dated 20.10.2021 before the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= Disciplinary Authority, wherein the IO had recorded the findings CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef that the Article of Charge Nos. I, III & IV, are proved and the db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Article of Charge-II, is partly proved, (Annex.A/2), which is impugned herein.
Ahmedabad Bench 2.9 After a lapse of more than 11 months from the date of receipt of the said Inquiry Report dated 20.10.2021, the Disciplinary Authority by tentatively agreeing with the findings of the IO, forwarded the said Inquiry Report to the applicant vide his Office Memorandum date 29.03.2022 (Annex.A/3) and thereby directed the applicant to submit his written representation thereon within the stipulated period of 15 days.
2.10 Thereafter, on receipt of the said Inquiry Report, the applicant submitted his representation dated 02.05.2022 (Annex.A/15 refers) before the disciplinary authority by narrating the detailed explanation and various grounds including the ground that none of the relied upon documents are proved during the inquiry nor the same has ever been supported by the prosecution witnesses, and thus, it is a case of no evidence. Further, it is also to be brought to the notice of DA about the belated initiation of departmental inquiry that too for the work carried out by the applicant in the capacity of a quasi judicial authority, the proceedings/charges were required to be dropped in the light of various judgments as relied upon him in his representation.
2.11 In the meantime, during the pendency of departmental proceedings the applicant herein, was granted ad hoc promotion ::7 :: O.A.No.370/2022 to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) in level-12 for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.01.2019 vide Office Order dated 31.12.2018 (Annex.A/16 refers).
2.12 It is stated that the applicant has been deprived of his regular promotion due to pendency of departmental enquiry/ proceedings whereas other junior officers have been granted regular promotion vide order dated 04.02.2021 and thereby serious prejudice has been caused to his service progression.
2.13 It is stated that after the applicant had submitted his Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA representation dated 02.05.2022 on the inquiry report, the RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 respondent No.1 i.e. Disciplinary Authority had kept the said departmental proceedings incomplete and as such the same is still Ahmedabad Bench pending.
2.14 It is stated that in the meantime, in respect to the alleged non compliance of the procedure while the applicant was discharging his official duties during the year 2014-15, an another Charge Memorandum dated 05.01.2021 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority against him. Since the said enquiry was not completed within the statutory time limit as provided under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, being aggrieved, the applicant herein had approached this Tribunal by filing an O.A. No.339/2022 and this Tribunal while issuing notices, restrained the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the said proceedings (in respect to another charge memorandum dated 05.01.2021) vide interim order dated 15.09.2022 (Annex.A/18 refers).
Subsequently, the said O.A. No. 339/2022 was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2023 by this Tribunal with the direction to conclude the pending department inquiry against him in respect to charge memorandum dated 05.01.2021 within the stipulated time limit. In this regard, it is stated that the question of inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings was not involved in the said O.A. and same was not the subject matter. Whereas, in the present case, the respondents initiated the disciplinary proceedings in the year 2018 in respect to the alleged misconduct ::8 :: O.A.No.370/2022 of the year 2005 and for such inordinate delay no explanation or reason has been assigned in the impugned charge memo.
2.15 Therefore, it has become expedient and necessary for the applicant herein to approach this Tribunal to challenge the very propriety, legality and validity of Charge Memorandum dated 02.02.2018 as the same has been issued after inordinate delay of more than 13 years that too without any explanation for such action and also the IO acted even he having become functus Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= officio on expiry of the statutory period of six months from the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef date of receipt of the nomination as IO and submitted his inquiry db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 report, also on the ground that without there being any formal sanction or extension of time beyond the six months as required Ahmedabad under Sub Rule 24 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the Bench impugned communication dated 29.03.2022 the disciplinary authority erroneously accepted the IO Report and directed the applicant to submit his representation, though, the he brought to the knowledge of the DA about various lacunae and irregularities in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, which has not been considered, therefore, the decision making process in the present OA suffers from various legal infirmities, hence, this OA.
3. Learned counsel Mr. M.S.Rao for the applicant, in support of his prayer sought in this O.A. mainly argued as under :
3.1 It is submitted that just with a sinister motive to spoil the applicant‟s career progression; the impugned departmental enquiry was instituted against him. In this regard, learned counsel would argue that for an alleged incident of May-June 2005, the respondents had initiated the disciplinary proceedings in the year 2018 i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 13 years. It is submitted that no explanation whatsoever, has been provided by the prosecution, as to how it took a long period of 13 years to issue this memorandum. As per the charges levelled against the applicant the auction of the shares of the assessee under the Income Tax Act, took place in the year 2005 and he has been discharging his duties in the capacity of TRO which is quasi ::9 :: O.A.No.370/2022 judicial in nature. The record of said proceedings were very much available as well as the same was within their knowledge, therefore, initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the year 2018 in respect to his so called conduct of 2005 that too without mentioning reasons for such inordinate delay, the entire proceedings in raising such ground, is vitiated.
3.2 It is submitted that the impugned charge memorandum has been issued without prior approval of the competent authority i.e. Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= Hon‟ble the Union Minister for Finance, GoI, which is a CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef mandatory requirement before initiation of disciplinary db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 proceedings in the case of applicant herein. Therefore, the impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 02.02.2018 Ahmedabad (Annex.A/1) and subsequent proceedings i.e. Inquiry Report dated Bench 20.10.2021 (Annex.A/2), as also, the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.03.2022 (Annex. A/3), deserve to be quashed and set aside.
3.3 Learned counsel Mr. Rao, would argue that the disciplinary authority pursuant to the CVC‟s first stage advise dated 23.11.2017, initiated departmental proceedings in the year 2018 against the applicant as well as his immediate superior i.e. Shri M.K.Gautam, the then Additional CIT (now CIT), who has endorsed the auction in the capacity of Additional CIT. It is stated that since the said Shri M.K.Gautam was denied his promotion as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 2017 and the DPC had kept their decision in a sealed cover on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, he approached the CAT, P.B., New Delhi, in O.A. No. 3252/2017 which was allowed with a direction to accord him promotion by maintaining his seniority.
Being aggrieved, the respondents had approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi by way of W.P.(C) 8115/2019 and C.M. No. 33675/2019 (UOI Vs. Manoj Kumar Gautam) the petitioner (i.e. respondents in OA). The Hon‟ble High Court had dealt with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner ::10 :: O.A.No.370/2022 therein to justify their decision to deny the promotion mainly on the ground of issuance of a charge memorandum dated 02.01.2018 and pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the said Sh. Gautam and while rejecting the said submission and dismissing the Writ Petition vide judgment dated 08.08.2019 mainly recorded its findings as under :-
―5.The submission of Mr. Makhija ........, he, however, submits that post the said decision, a charge-sheet has been issued to the respondent vide memorandum dated 01.02.2018. Mr. Makhija submits that since the respondent stands chargesheeted, and the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, charge-sheet has been issued to the respondent before the issuance of orders for his promotion, he cannot be granted Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA promotion in the light of the DOP&T OM dated 14.09.1992. RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
6. The charge memorandum issued to the respondent dated 01.02.2018 has been perused by us. The two Articles of Charge framed against the respondent vide the said charge-memo are the Ahmedabad following:
Bench ―ARTICLE-I That Shri M.K. Gautam while serving as the Addl. CIT, Central Range, Surat during the period 16.7.2004 to 24.6.2005, in connivance with the TRO, Central Range, Surat oversaw the auction of the shares of Dandi Salt Pvt.
Ltd. for a paltry sum thereby causing a gain to certain individuals and loss to the organization. He acted in an improper manner by endorsing the auction of shares of Dandi Salt Pvt. Ltd. by his letter dated 27.5.2005, without raising any query about the shares of he other companies which were also under attachment. Thus, by his aforesaid acts, Shri M.K. Gautam failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant; further, while holding a supervisory post, he did not take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion of the government servant for the time being under his control and authority. Thus, he violated the provisions of Rules 3(I)(ii), 3(1)(ii) and 3(I)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II That Shri M.K. Gautam while serving as the Addl. CIT, Central Range, Surat during the period 16.7.2004 to 24.6.2005, vide letter dated 27th May, 2005, while granting approval, directed the then TRO to sell the shares of Dandi Salt Pvt. at the face value without opting for valuation of the said shares for determining the Reserve Price, as required b Rule 18 of the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962. In connivance with the TRO, he issued directions to sell the shares on „first come first offer basis‟ instead of sale by public auction as required by Rules 43 and 44 of the Second Schedule of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Thus, he failed in his supervisory duties by giving inappropriate directions to the TRO. Thus, by his aforesaid acts, Shri M.K. Gautam failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government ::11 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Servant; further, while holding a supervisory post, he did not take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion of the government servant for the time being under his control and authority. Thus, he violated the provisions of Rules 3(I)(ii), 3(1)(ii) and 3(I)(iii) and 3(2)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 ‖ (emphasis supplied)
7. It would be seen that the said charges pertain to the period from 16.07.2004 to 24.06.2005. There is no averment made in the charge memorandum that the allegations contained therein against the respondents surfaced only recently, much less is it alleged that the respondent was instrumental in suppressing the uncovering of the alleged misconduct by him. The Statement of Imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour in support of the Article of Charge record, inter alia, the directions issued by the respondent on 27.05.2005 in relation to the shares of Dandi Salt Private Limited, which read as follows: ―.... Both Mr. Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, Sureshchandra Agarwal and Mrs.Anju Agarwal own 100 shares S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 in Dandi Salt Pvt. Ltd. which is a defunct company. From the 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 balance sheet of the said company, it is seen that no business has been started in the said concern. There are no new assets owned by the said company except the share capital and share Ahmedabad application money of Rs. 7500/- each in the name of Mr. Bench Sureshchandra Agarwal and Mrs. Anju Agarwal.‖
8. The allegation against the respondent was that he had not assessed the value of the trademark ―Dandi Salt‖, which was owned by the defunct company Dandi Salt Private Limited. The allegations against the respondent are such, which were known to the petitioner Department soon after he had allegedly committed the misconduct of permitting the sale of the shares of Dandi Salt Private Limited on first-come-first-serve basis.
9. A perusal of the Charge-Sheet and the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour in support of the Article of Charge leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the present is a case of witch-hunt of the respondent. The immense delay in issuance of the charge memorandum after the alleged misconduct took place in the year 2004-2005 is not at all explained. The charge memorandum was not issued either before holding of the DPC - when the respondent's case came up for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, or even thereafter till the pendency of the Original Application preferred by the respondent in September 2017. The charge memorandum has been issued well after the order was passed by the Tribunal on 16.11.2017 directing that the respondent be promoted to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, since he had been found fit for promotion by the DPC.
10. Mr. Makhija has submitted that the complaint against the respondent had been received in the year 2011. Evidently, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent dated 25.09.2012 calling for his explanation in relation to the incident/transaction.
The respondent submitted his reply dated 22.10.2012. Firstly, there is no explanation as to why the charge memorandum was not issued for nearly 6 years after receiving the reply of the respondent - if the petitioner was not satisfied therewith. Secondly, the charge memorandum does not even state so much as to say that the respondents reply has been examined and found to be unsatisfactory- let alone why the same was found unsatisfactory.
::12 :: O.A.No.370/202211. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.‖ Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents failed to explain the inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings in the year 2018 with respect to the alleged auction which took place in the year 2005. It is also argued that the Hon‟ble High of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment observed that the petitioner (Department of Revenue) therein, was very much aware about the auction held in the year 2005 and in Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= this regard, an explanation was also sought at a belated stage in JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, the year 2012 and, thereafter, an another period of six years have SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 been elapsed and subsequently, charge memorandum was issued in the year 2018 for the said immense delay but, no explanation Ahmedabad along with supporting evidence, is available on record. Since, the Bench applicant herein, was a sub-ordinate officer to said Shri M.K.Gautam, and was served with the impugned charge memorandum dated 02.02.2018 for the very incidence of 2005 without any explanation of gross delay, therefore, the findings recorded by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of M.K.Gautam (supra), is squarely applicable in the case of applicant herein on the point of unexplained delay in issuance of charge memorandum and its validity. The learned counsel to substantiate his submissions on the point of inordinate delay for initiation of departmental proceedings that too without any satisfactory explanation and, resultantly vitiating the inquiry, has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh [reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308] and P.V.Mahadeven Vs. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board [reported in (2005) Supp.(2) SCR 474] as well. Thus, it is submitted that for the said reasons, the charge memorandum is not tenable in the eye of law.
3.4 According to the learned counsel for the applicant, on a close perusal of the Article of Charges levelled against him, none of them can be said to be fall within the meaning of "Misconduct" as defined in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In this regard, it is further ::13 :: O.A.No.370/2022 submitted that the functions, duties and responsibilities which the applicant was discharging at the relevant point of time, as Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), were essentially quasi judicial duties in nature. Not only that any decision of the applicant taken in the capacity of quasi judicial authority, is subject to further review or approval by the higher authorities. Therefore, it is not open for the respondents to initiate a departmental inquiry in respect of such a quasi judicial act performed by him.
3.5 Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef disciplinary authority as well the inquiry authority, failed to db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 consider the fact that while he was discharging his quasi judicial duties, had passed an order solely based on the material on record Ahmedabad and the recommendations of the higher authority and as well as, in Bench consonance with the provisions of the extant rules under the Income Tax Act. If any wrong order, as alleged, has been passed by the applicant, the same cannot be termed as a „misconduct‟. There is no allegation of any mala fide or any ulterior motive against him, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law.
3.6 The impugned orders are contrary to the law laid down by various rulings rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, Hon‟ble High Courts as well various other Benches of this Tribunal.
3.7 In this regard, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on an order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in case of Shri S.Rajguru Vs. Union of India (OA No.2815/2012), decided on 01.02.2013 (Annex.14 colly.) wherein, by referring various judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court including the law down in the case of M. M. Malhotra Vs. Union of India [reported in (2005) 8 SCC 351] as also the judgment delivered in the matter of Dev Singh Vs.Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, [reported in (1987) 3 SCC 169], it has been held in its para 28 that the applicant has discharged quasi judicial functions in the position of a quasi judicial authority i.e. CIT (A).
His action or error in law or mistake in law, cannot be attracted to proceed against him treating the same as a „misconduct‟. The ::14 :: O.A.No.370/2022 quasi judicial authorities are to function independently without any fear or favour. The fear of facing disciplinary action in case the decision goes against the Government, cannot be brought in the mind of such quasi judicial authorities. Accordingly, it has further been held that the applicant therein, had acted as per the express provisions of Statute as CIT (Appeal), hence, the decision/order of the applicant therein, was held to be a decision taken in the capacity of a quasi judicial authority and the impugned charge memorandum was quashed and set aside.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef 3.8 It is submitted that in the present case, applicant has discharged db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
his duties at the relevant point of time as a Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) in good faith which were quasi judicial in nature. Thus, the Ahmedabad said important aspect as well as the protection granted by Section Bench 293 of Income Tax Act, and Judges Protection Act, 1985 to such officers who performs quasi judicial duties, have been totally ignored by the Disciplinary Authority and illegally initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the charges levelled against the applicant, do not constitute a "misconduct", in view of the above, mandatory provisions and elaborated submissions made in his representation against the report of the IO.
3.9 Learned counsel by referring a judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of M.V. Bijalani Vs. UOI [ reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88], submits that the inquiring authority performs quasi judicial functions and it cannot shift the burden of proof or reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Thus, the burden is always on the prosecution to adduce evidences to prove the article of charges levelled upon the delinquent charged officer.
Learned counsel reiterated that it is dictum of jurisprudence that ―everybody is presumed to be innocent‖, till he is proved ‗guilty'. Consequently, it is the sole burden on the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of articles of charges and the same is required to be proved before the inquiry officer. In the present ::15 :: O.A.No.370/2022 case, total 17 documents were relied upon to sustain the charges against the applicant and the same were tendered through the sole prosecution witnesses Sh.Naresh K. Meena. During the examination in chief of the said prosecution witness he has categorically stated that none of these seventeen documents were either prepared by him or authored by him. In this regard, applicant relied upon question No. 2 and answered to it as recorded by the IO.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=Therefore, learned counsel submits that once it is proved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef that none of the seventeen documents (RUDs), relied upon the db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 prosecution, were neither prepared nor authored by the sole prosecution witness then it amounts to the fact that RUDs were Ahmedabad only tendered and not proved. Thus, it becomes a case of no Bench evidence. In this regard, learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank [reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570].
3.10 Learned counsel argued that there are various other procedural infirmities which have been brought to the knowledge of inquiring as well as disciplinary authorities, however, they have never been taken into consideration. It is submitted that in this regard, he relied upon the said infirmities mentioned in his representation i.e. Annex.A/14 colly.
3.11 It is submitted that applicant had performed his duties in accordance with the rules and the charges levelled against him, are contrary to the material available on record. Further, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority lost sight of the fact that it emerges from record that the assessee was absconding and during the course of attachment of the shares, actual shares were not impounded or seized. Under the circumstances, in terms of the provisions of Rule 36 (4) (b) of the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings), Rules, 1962, the Tax Recovery Officer may take steps to obtain a duplicate of the share certificate or other document of title, as if the share certificate or other document of title has been lost or destroyed. Thus, the TRO was left with no ::16 :: O.A.No.370/2022 other option but to follow the provisions of Rule 36 (4) (b) of Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings), Rules, by printing duplicate shares and handing it over to the auction purchasers.
Therefore, the vary article of charges levelled against the applicant that fraudulently he printed the share certificates, is absolutely vague and not tenable in the eye of law.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during the pendency of the OA, he has filed M.A. No.68/2023 seeking relief Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= for issuance of a direction to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to place CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef the original of all noting files in respect to seeking of first stage db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 advise from CVC till the stage of issuance of impugend charge memorandum and original noting file maintain by CBDT in Ahmedabad respect to grant of extension of time to the inquiry authority if any Bench to continue with the inquiry beyond stipulated time limit.
5. Further, learned counsel for the applicant submits that while issuing notices, this Tribunal by way of an interim order dated 28.09.2022, directed the respondent No.1, not to pass any order in respect to pending departmental inquiry and the said interim order/relief is still in force.
However, by ignoring the said interim order dated 28.09.2022, the disciplinary authority still proceeded further with the pending departmental inquiry and had sought UPSC‟s advice vide communication dated 22.08.2023 in respect to its proposed penalty of "reduction to a lower stage by three stages till retirement". In response to it, the UPSC rendered it‟s advise vide communication dated 07.11.2023. On receipt of the UPSC advice, a copy of the same was supplied to the applicant herein by respondent No.1 vide communication/memorandum dated 06.12.2023 and he was called upon to submit his representation, if any, against the said UPSC advise. Therefore, being aggrieved, with the aforesaid contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondents, the applicant herein, was compelled to file a MA bearing No.19/2024 on 08.01.2024 for grant of further interim ::17 :: O.A.No.370/2022 relief restraining them not to proceed further in respect to the communication dated 06.12.2023 and such MA is still pending.
5.1 Therefore, learned counsel would argue that since without there being any satisfactory explanation along with supporting documents provided in the memo of charges for initiation of departmental proceedings after 13 years and further the lacuna crept-in at the very initial stage while case of the applicant was referred in the year 2017 to the CVC for its first advise that too Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= without seeking prior approval of the competent authority i.e. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= Hon‟ble the President for the act/conduct of the applicant while 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 working as quasi judicial authority, is incurable and thus, all the subsequent acts/steps taken by the respondents herein have to fall Ahmedabad flat in view of the ratio of the Hon‟ble Apex Court laid down in Bench the case of CMD Coal India Limited Vs. Ananta Sahay reported in 2011 (5) SCC 152 on the application of legal maxim, "Sublato fundamento cadit opus".
5.2 It is submitted that on expiry of statutory time limit of six months‟ as stipulated in Sub-rule 24 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and in absence of grant of a formal written extension of time to conclude the inquiry, the said inquiry officer become functus officio. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority should not have accepted such belated inquiry report dated 20.10.2021 and ought not to have declare its tentative agreement with the findings of the IO while forwarding the said inquiry report to the applicant herein vide impugned office memorandum dated 29.03.2022 (Annex.
A/3). According to learned counsel, the said decision of the respondents is also contrary to the provisions of Sub-rule 24 of the Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, therefore, the impugned office memorandum at Annex. A/3, is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. In sum, learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned orders suffers from various legal infirmities such as, initiation of disciplinary proceedings at belated stage that too without any explanation along with supporting documents, the applicant ::18 :: O.A.No.370/2022 discharged his duties in capacity of a quasi judicial authority and the same cannot be treated as misconduct, the IO, though become functus officio, in absence of any prior written sanction from the disciplinary authority extending the time beyond the expiry of six months‟ but he continued with the inquiry which is not permissible under law, the departmental inquiry cannot be continued for an indefinite period, and, the charges are vague in nature and being contrary to the material in hand and. as well as, the relevant rules in vogue, thus, this is a case of no evidence Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef
7. Per contra, the respondents have denied the claim of the applicant.
db7b9922bd,
RA PostalCode=342006,
S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B
A9D18167E0260A2A
1B2AB7E0C85B7E6
MEHTA E19FD988D3007062
B, CN=JITENDRA
RAJ MEHTA
Reason: I am the
author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.11
14:05:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.1.0
8. Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 by referring the averments in the counter reply, mainly Ahmedabad Bench submitted as under :
8.1 It is submitted that the allegation levelled by the C.O. that it has taken 13 years to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, is not true and the same is denied. By referring the time-line of the proceedings, learned counsel submits that in September 2011, they had received a complaint vis-a-vis applicant‟s involvement in 2005 incident, while he was working as TRO at Surat. In response to it, his version, was called on 25.09.2012 which he submitted.
Thereafter, a preliminary inquiry of CBI was received in the year 2014.
Thereafter, a comprehensive report was called from the ADG (Vig.), Western Zone, in the year 2016 which was received on 17.03.2016. The report, along with draft charge-sheet received from the office of the ADG (Vig.) on 30.03.2017.The same was examined and was submitted to the Chairman, CBDT, to make a reference to the CVC on 16.05.2017. Thereafter, on 30.05.2017, UO note was sent to the CVC for its first advice. Subsequently, draft FM note was put up on 29.12.2017 for the approval for initiation of disciplinary prooceedings against the applicant herein and the same was approved by the Hon‟ble Finance Minister on 23.01.2018. Accordingly, a charge memorandum was issued on ::19 :: O.A.No.370/2022 02.02.2018. wherein a detailed statement of imputation was provided to establish his misconduct, more particuarly, he totally failed to ad here to the provisions stipulated under the Income Tax Act while discharging his duties as a Tax Recovery Officer, therefore, there is no delay 13 years, as stressed upon by the CO.
8.2 It is stated that in Bani Singh's case, the department had taken long time of almost 12 years to dispose the disciplinary proceedings whereas, in the case of the applicant herein, the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= departmental inquiry initiated in the year 2018, were concluded in CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef the year 2021 and the inquiry report was submitted on 20.10.2021 db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 before the DA . Under the circumstances, there is no similarity of the facts in the relied upon case of Bani Singh (supra), and the Ahmedabad same cannot be made applicable in his case. Bench 8.3 Learned counsel for the respondents denied the averments of the applicant that in absence of any written approval extending the time the IO continued with the inquiry, he also denied the allegation of applicant that the IO had delayed the departmental inquiry. It is submitted that the pendency of the inquiry, the IO unfortunately expired and therefore, the DA in terms of provisions of Sub-rule 22 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 appointed a new IO to complete the pending departmental inquiry. The said order of the DA was received by the IO on 22.01.2021.
8.4 Further, it is submitted that the IO had also requested for supply of an additional period of few months for completion of inquiry proceedings. The extension of time for completing the pending departmental inquiry was approved by the disciplinary authority.
8.5 By referring the IO report, more particularly, the chronology stated therein, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the records related to earlier proceedings recieved by the IO on 08.03.2021, the PO informed the IO on 25.05.2021 about receipt of some original documents of Annex.-III of the Charge Memorandum (Sl.Nos.2,3,4,10-17). On 07.06.2021 & 15.06.2021 inspection of documents was made available to the CO. The IO ::20 :: O.A.No.370/2022 directed the PO on 10.06.2021 and 11.06.2021 to make available the remaining prosecution documents for inspection. Thereafter, the PO took-up the matter on 11.06.2021 with the Principal, CCIT (CCA), Gujarat.
Thereafter, on 25.06.2021, the IO was informed about the availability of some of the original documents with the Investigation Wing. Accordingly, a request was made to the Investigation Wing, Surat, to supply such documents. On Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= 02.09.2021, the PO informed the IO about the inspection of the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef original documents (Sl.Nos. 7 and 9). Therefore, it is submitted db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 that the applicant herein, was granted enough opportunity to inspect the original documents.
Ahmedabad Bench 8.6 Thereafter, by granting opportunity to the CO to submit his written brief and on receipt of the same, departmental inquiry was concluded by the IO and he submitted its report on 20.10.2021 before the Disciplinary Authority wherein, the IO has recorded the findings that the Article of Charges at Sl. No. I, III and IV, are proved whereas, the Article of Charges mentioned at Sl. No. II, are „partly proved„.
8.7 Therefore, it is submitted that the IO had taken a period of approx.
nine months to submit his inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. This cannot be termed as significant delay particularly, considering the fact that at the relevant time, pandamic was very much active due to COVID.
8.8 Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by tantatively aggreeing with the findings recorded in the inquiry report dated 20.10.2021, had forwarded a copy of the said inquiry report to the applicant vide Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2022 (Annexs.A/2 & 3 refers), and directed him to submit his representation thereon.
8.9 The applicant herein, on receipt of the inquiry report, submitted his representation dated 02.05.2022 thereon, before the disciplinary authority. However, before the Disciplinary authority consider and decide the applicant‟s representation and pass his ::21 :: O.A.No.370/2022 final decision/order in respect to the said departmental inquiry, at this stage, he approached this Tribunal on 26.09.2022 by filing the present O.A. challenging the validity of the disciplinary proceedings held against him.
8.10 This Tribunal, while issuing notices in the said OA and by way of interim order dated 28.09.2022 directed the disciplidnary authority (respondent no.1) that the DA shall not pass any order on the inquiry report dated 20.10.2021 and the said interim order Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= continued till date. Therefore, the pending disciplinary CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef proceedings could not be completed by the DA.
db7b9922bd,
RA PostalCode=342006,
S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B
A9D18167E0260A2A
1B2AB7E0C85B7E6
MEHTA E19FD988D3007062
B, CN=JITENDRA
RAJ MEHTA
Reason: I am the
author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.11
14:05:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.1.0
8.11 It is submitted that the time period taken by the IO to conclude the departmental inquiry was marginally exceeding six months time Ahmedabad Bench limit. Therefore, there is neither a malafide intension to harass the applicant nor is it the lacking on behalf of the IO, but to sheer adherence to effciency and foolproof reporting.
8.12 It is further submitted that Hon‟ble the Finance Minister has given the approval on 23.01.2018 for initiation of major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, against the deqlinquent officer.
8.13 Further, it is submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant including violation of the established procedure for conducting auction and also fraudulently printing share certificates of the Company. His contention that none of the article of charges levelled against him falling within the mischief of "Misconduct", is vehemently denied. Further, it is submitted that the applicant had acted in an improper manner and in contravention of the established norms of conduct by not following the procedure laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962 and provisions of the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962.
8.14 Further, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not correct to state by the applicant that since he was discharging his duties in his capacity as a quasi-judicial authority and no ::22 :: O.A.No.370/2022 disciplinary proceeding ought to have been initiated against him. In this regard, learned counsel argued that the Departmental Inquiry yet to reach its conclusion. The IO has recorded in its report that there are procedural lapses on the part of the applicant by not following the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the provisions of Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as well, at the relevant time.
8.15 Further, it is submitted that to meet with the administrative Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= exigencies, the competent authority by following the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef Instructions/Guidelines stipulated in OM No.28036/8/87-Estt.(D) db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 dated 30.03.1988, to meet with administrative exigencies, had initiated process for grant of ad hoc appointment/promotion. Ahmedabad Bench Accordingly, the screening committee for the purposes of granting purely ad hoc promotion(s) to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT), had considered the names of IRS Officers of 2009 batch as well as the leftover officers of earlier batches in its meeting held on 28.12.2018. The name of applicant herein was also considered for ad hoc promotion, but due to the withheld vigilance clearance in his case, the screening committee, decided to keep their recommendation in a sealed cover along with other eleven officers.
Further, it is submitted that the claim of the applicant to grant him ad hoc as well as regular promotion was not acceptable due to the recommendations of the screening committee and pendency of departmental inquiry against him.
8.16 It is submitted that the allegations against the IO about the bias and the intention to harass the applicant and cause him grievous jeopardy in terms of denial of retirement benefits, are baseless and applicant is not entitled for any relief as sought in this OA.
9. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated the contentions as mentioned in the OA. Additionally, it is stated that the respondents failed to distinguish the ratio laid down by the ::23 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Banni Singh as the same decision rendered in rem and not in personam.
9.1 It is stated that there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondents No. 1 herein as to what had prevented the DA from initiating departmental disciplinary inquiry as soon as the complaint received by them in the year 2011 and had waited till year 2018 to initiate the disciplinary proceeding.
9.2 The respondents have failed to place on record any written approval of the DA for extension of time limit to conclude the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA departmental inquiry beyond the stipulated time limit of six RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 months.
Ahmedabad 9.3 Further, it is submitted that the deponent in the reply has failed to Bench appreciate the maxim functus officio, in its true spirit and has wrongly stated that provisions of Sub Rule 24 of Rule 14 if not followed the IO can continue with the departmental inquiry that too without any written approval to do so by the DA. Therefore, the inquiry report is not sustainable in the eye of law.
10. During the pendency of the instant O.A., the applicant filed a M.A. No. 68/2023, seeking a relief for issuance of a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to place on record the notings file etc. as referred in sub paras 4.01 and 4.02 of para 4 of the said M.A. for perusal of this Tribunal. In this regard, learned counsel for applicant submits that since the respondents have not supplied the substantial proof and the details about grant of approval to the draft charge memo and the approval on the charge memo dated 02.02.2018 by the Hon‟ble the Union Finance Minister or the State Finance Minister since in the case of applicant President of India is the disciplinary authority and for initiation of disciplinary proceedings the power has to be exercised by Hon‟ble Union Finance Minister, he had sought information in this regard under the RTI vide his application dated 16.12.2022.
10.1 By referring the reply/information supplied to him under the RTI by the CBDT Hqrs. dated 05.01.2023 (Annex.RJ/2), it has been ::24 :: O.A.No.370/2022 stated that though the applciant vide his RTI application sought specific information and documents on the issue as to whether prior to the issuance of the impugned charge memorandum dated 02.02.2018 by V&L Section in the CBDT Hqrs. had they sought and obtained the requisite approval in writting from the Hon‟ble Union Minister for Finance or from the Hon‟ble Minister of State of Finance, including the information about prior approrval on the draft charge memorandum. In response to the said RTI application of the applicant, he has received reply from the Under Secretary Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA (V&L) in his capacity of CPIO dated 05.01.2023 whereby he was DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this conveyed that his RTI application has been tranferred to the office document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 of DGIT (Vig.) New Delhi, under Sec. 6 of the RTI, Act.
Ahmedabad 10.2 Thereafter, on 06.02.2023, the applicant has received an Bench information from the CPIO of the office of Director General of Income Tax (Vig.) dated 02.02.2023 (Annex.M/1) wherein, though it has been stated that (i) the competent authority for giving the approval for seeking First Stage Advice (FSA) from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), is the Secretary (Revenue)/Chairman of the respective Board/ Member (P) of the respective Board, as the case may be. The prior approval of Member (Admin), CBDT, as well as the Chairman (CBDT), was taken on 19.05.2017 before referring the case to the CVC and therefore, there was no requirement to take approval of Hon‟ble Minister of Finance while seeking FSA from CVC. Further
(ii) The Hon‟ble Finance Minister, GoI, has approved the draft charge memo on 23.01.2018 which resulted in issuance of charge memo dated 02.02.2018.(iii) Further, it has been conveyed that the Hon‟ble Finance Minister, was obtained on 23.12.2020 for nomination of one Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Pr. CIT, as an inquiring authority, the respondents denied to provide authenticated copies of notings on the file on the ground that since the inquiry proceedings are still pending in the applicant‟s case and providing the notings will hamper inquiry proceedings and it would be against the preservation of sensitive information.::25 :: O.A.No.370/2022
10.3 Further, it was conveyed that providings of requisite notings will also disclose identity of the officers who have been engaged in preparation and approval of the disciplinary proceedings.
10.4 Therefore, learned counsel would argue that it can be seen that the respondents have denied the supply of correct details on the flimsy ground and thus the stand on the part of the respondents is clearly indicative of demonstrative of the indisputable fact that the applicant herein contended in the O.A. that the respondents have Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= not obtained any prior approval of the Hon‟ble Union Finance CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef Minsiter before issuance of impugned charge memo. Therefore, db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the entire notings file, right from the stage of seeking first stage advice from the CVC till the stage of the issuance of impugned Ahmedabad charge memo dated 02.02.2018 to this O.A. and the original Bench notings file maintained by the CBDT Headquarters including the details of extension of time soughtby the IO and approval therein by the DA in terms of Sub Rule 24 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, are necessary and the same are required to be placed on record in the present proceedings of OA.
11. In the meantime, respondent No. 6 i.e. UPSC, has filed its reply and mainly contended that the Department of Revenue submitted a DPC proposal for considering regular promotions to the post of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JAG) (JCIT) in the CBDT against the vancies of 2019. The name of the applicant was also included in the eligibility list along with other eligible officers. The DPC meeting was held in the Commission on 20/21-01-2021. Since the Department of Revenue with-held the vigilance clearance, the recommendations of the said DPC in his respect was placed in a sealed cover. Subsequently, his case has also been considered for the vacancies of the years 2020-2021 in the DPC. However, due to pending vigilance clearance, the recommendations of both the meetings were placed in a sealed cover.
11.1 Further, it is submitted that the Commission is not associated with consideration of cases of ad hoc promotions to the post of JCIT.
::26 :: O.A.No.370/2022Further, it is stated that no disciplinary case of the applicant has been received in the Commission till date. The applicant has not made out any cause of action against the Commission in respect of disciplinary proceedings, therefore, the Commission has been impleaded in the O.A. unnecessarily.
12. The applicant has also filed a MA No. 19/2024 on 08.01.2024, wherein by referring the interim directions passed by this Tribunal, copy of order/Memorandum dated 06.12.2023 Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= [Annex.MA/3] whereby, the DA directed the applicant to submit CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef his representation on the advise of the UPSC dated 07.11.2023 db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 withihn 15 days has sought additional relief/interim relief to restrain the respondent No. 1 from proceeding any further till final Ahmedabad disposal of the OA in pursuance of order/memo dated 6.12.2023 Bench (MA/3). In support of the said pryaer, learned cousnel for the applicant submits that inspite of the interim order passed by this Tribunal restraining the DA not to pass any order in the pending disciplinary proceedings the respondents in its utter violation had passed an order and had proceeded further to obtain UPSC advise in the matter which is not permissible under the law. The said action on the part of DA are demonstrative conduct on their part not to adhered to the interim directions issued by this Tribunal with a view to deprive the applicant for his service progression.
12.1 Learned counsel for the applicant would also argue that the respondents deliberately denied authenticated copies of the notings as sought for by the applicant. Further, it is submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondents for not to provide the notings that it will disclose identity of officers who are engaged in praparation and approval of disciplinary proceedings and such disclosures might hamper the effective performance of their duties is not tenable under the mandate of Right to Iinformation Act. It is stated that the respondent department is not ready and willing to part with the aforesaid crucial documents on the flimsy grounds.
Thus, the said stand on the part of the respondents is clearly indictive to harass the applicant with continuation of illegal ::27 :: O.A.No.370/2022 disciplinary proceedings.Learned counsel reiterated his submission that the respondents have suppressed the material documents in respect to grant of approval to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and the charge memorandum and thus, the impugned proceedings are vitiated on the ground of lack of requisite approval / sanction of the competent authority.
13. The respondents have filed their reply in M.A.No. 19 of 2022 on 23.01.2024 and denied the additional reliefs sought by the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= applicant through the said M.A. It is submitted that it is not CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef correct on the part of the applicant that after the interim order db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 passed by this Tribunal dated 28.09.2022 the respondents have passed any order in respect to the pending disciplinary Ahmedabad proceedings against the applicant herein. In this regard, it is stated Bench that the communication dated 22.08.2023 is the communication between the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, New Delhi and the UPSC whereby, statutory advise from the UPSC in the matter was sought, however, no final order has yet been passed in the matter.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. After the arguments were concluded, learned counsel for the parties have submitted their written notes/submissions and copies of relied upon judgments.
15. At the outset, it would be apposite to reiterate the well-settled legal position governing the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings that the Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not function as an appellate forum over departmental proceedings. Interference with factual findings is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where such findings are demonstrably based on no evidence, or where the conclusions arrived at are so perverse, irrational or legally untenable that no reasonable person, acting judiciously, could have arrived at such findings. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench comprising three Hon‟ble Judges of the Apex Court in B.C. ::28 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [reported in [(1995) 6 SCC 749].
Upon an exhaustive survey of the law on the subject, the Hon‟ble Apex Court authoritatively delineated the limited contours of judicial review in matters arising out of departmental proceedings. By referring the said judgment and various other judgments, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh [reported in (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321], once again highlighted the limited ambit of judicial review in matters arising out of disciplinary and departmental inquiries. The Court Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA reiterated that Courts and Tribunals, while exercising powers of DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this judicial review, must confine themselves to examining the document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 decision-making process and not venture into an appraisal or re- appreciation of the evidence on record. It was further emphasized Ahmedabad Bench that interference is justified only where the inquiry proceedings or the resultant findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity, violation of statutory rules, or breach of principles of natural justice, and not merely because a different conclusion on facts is possible. The relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the facts and submissions of the counsel for the parties in the case in hand, the question Whether initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant herein after 13 years from the alleged incident of year 2005 vitiates the entire proceedings, the same is required to be adjudicated first?
16.1 It emerges from the record that pursuant to the CVC‟s first stage advise dated 23.11.2017 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against one Shri M.K.Gautam, the then Additional CIT, Central ::29 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Range, Surat, and the Applicant herein the then TRO, Surat, undisputedly, the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant vide impugned charge memorandum dated 02.02.2018 (Annex.A/1), whereby it has been alleged that while the applicant was performing his duties as Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) at Surat in the year 2005, he acted in improper manner and in contravention of the procedure laid down under the Rules 38 & 39 of the Schedule-II and other provisions of the Income Tax Act, Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA 1961. Further, it transpires that this is an admitted fact that for the DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this incident of year 2005 the disciplinary proceedings nearly after a document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 delay of 13 years have initiated against the applicant herein on 02.02.2018. For such inordinate delay in initiating the Ahmedabad Bench disciplinary proceedings, no reason or even any satisfactory explanation has been mentioned in the impugned charge memorandum dated 02.02.2018. The objections raised by the CO in his representation before the disciplinary authority in this regard, have not been considered in its true spirit.
16.2 With such grievances, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argue that the respondents failed to explain inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him in respect of the incident of 2005. He further submits that due to such belated stage initiation of disciplinary proceedings seriously hampered his promotional avenue and he has been deprived of regular promotion to the higher post whereas, his junior has been granted regular promotion. Therefore, such unexplained inordinate delay of 13 years to initiate proceedings against the applicant caused serious prejudice to the applicant in service progression and for the said sole ground the impugned charge memo is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of said submission, learned counsel relied upon the findings recorded by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case UOI Vs. Manoj Kumar Gautam W.P.(C) 8115/2019 & C.M. No. 33675/2019 decided on 08.08.2019, as well as the judgments passed by ::30 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board [reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636], State of M.P. Vs. Banni Singh and Anr. [reported in (1990) Suppl.
SCC 738], as also the judgment passed in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan, [reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154].
16.3 As against the respondents, on receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, in their counter reply attempted to explain such inordinate delay that the alleged misconduct of the delinquent Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= officer of the year 2005 came to light in the year 2011 and after CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef investigation by the CVC the impugned charge memorandum db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 dated 02.02.2018 was issued.
16.4 To appreciate the said submission, we find that undisputedly, Ahmedabad Bench along with the applicant herein the respondent had also initiated disciplinary proceedings for the an identical charges against the immediate higher officer to the applicant i.e. one Shri M.K. Gautam, the then Additional CIT, Surat Range vide charge memo dated 1.2.2018, since he was denied promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings, therefore, a challenge to such denial was accepted by the CAT, Principal Bench and while allowing his O.A. directed the respondents to grant the benefit of promotion. Being dissatisfied with the said directions of the Tribunal, the respondent department approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi by way of a W.P.(C) 8115/2019 and while dismissing the petition, the Hon‟ble High Court rejected the submission of the department that charge memo in respect to the alleged misconduct of 2004-2005 was issued in the year 2018 and due to which the regular promotion was not granted to the respondent therein.
Further, the Hon‟ble High Court vide said judgment dated 08.08.2019 held that the petitioner i.e. the department therein, failed to explain the inordinate delay in initiation of departmental proceedings concerning the incident of the year 2005. Further nothing has been stated in the charge memo that the alleged misconduct has been came to knowledge recently or any reason ::31 :: O.A.No.370/2022 for initiating such proceedings at a belated stage that too without any satisfactory reason for it.
Therefore, we deem it appropriate to refer the relevant observations and findings recorded by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Manoj Kumar Gautam (supra) which reads as under :-
―7. It would be seen that the said charges pertain to the period from 16.07.2004 to 24.06.2005. There is no averment made in the charge memorandum that the allegations Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa contained therein against the respondents surfaced only JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef recently, much less is it alleged that the respondent was db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 instrumental in suppressing the uncovering of the alleged 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 misconduct by him. The Statement of Imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour in support of the Article of Charge record, inter alia, the directions issued by the Ahmedabad Bench respondent on 27.05.2005 in relation to the shares of Dandi Salt Private Limited, which read as follows: ―.... Both Mr. Sureshchandra Agarwal and Mrs.Anju Agarwal own 100 shares in Dandi Salt Pvt. Ltd. which is a defunct company. From the balance sheet of the said company, it is seen that no business has been started in the said concern. There are no new assets owned by the said company except the share capital and share application money of Rs. 7500/- each in the name of Mr. Sureshchandra Agarwal and Mrs. Anju Agarwal.‖
8. The allegation against the respondent was that he had not assessed the value of the trademark ―Dandi Salt‖, which was owned by the defunct company Dandi Salt Private Limited. The allegations against the respondent are such, which were known to the petitioner Department soon after he had allegedly committed the misconduct of permitting the sale of the shares of Dandi Salt Private Limited on first-
come-first-serve basis.
9. A perusal of the Charge-Sheet and the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour in support of the Article of Charge leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the present is a case of witch-hunt of the respondent.
10. Mr. Makhija has submitted that the complaint against the respondent had been received in the year 2011. Evidently, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent dated 25.09.2012 calling for his explanation in relation to the incident/transaction. The respondent submitted his reply dated 22.10.2012. Firstly, there is no explanation as to why the charge memorandum was not issued for nearly 6 years after receiving the reply of the respondent - if the petitioner was not satisfied therewith. Secondly, the charge ::32 :: O.A.No.370/2022 memorandum does not even state so much as to say that the respondents reply has been examined and found to be unsatisfactory- let alone why the same was found unsatisfactory.
11. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.‖ 16.5 It can be seen that in the aforesaid judgment in the case of M.K.Gautam who was the then Additional CIT, Surat Range, the immediate supervisor of the applicant, the Hon‟ble High Court had categorically stated that the respondent failed to explain JITEND Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef inordinate delay for initiation of disciplinary proceedings db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA pertaining to the incident of 2005 and by upholding the judgment E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent department. Ahmedabad Bench 16.6 In the present case, as noted herein above, no explanation whatsoever has been stated in the impugned charge memorandum dated 02.02.2018 why the departmental action or the proceeding were not initiated at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2005 nor any explanation has been mentioned for lapse of such long delay.
Therefore, we find substantial force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the findings recorded by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M.K.Gautam (supra) on the point of unexplained inordinate delay for initiation of departmental proceedings and such charge memorandum is not tenable in the eye of law is squarely applicable in the case of the applicant herein.
16.7 In addition to aforesaid, it is profitable to refer the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan (supra) wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering the issue of delay in initiation of departmental proceedings and delay in its conclusion such departmental inquiry and the right of employee to claim promotion during the pendency of such disciplinary proceedings, had uphold the legality & validity of the orders passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative ::33 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Tribunal and dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the State of AP, in paras 19, 20 & 21, held as under :-
―19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged Ahmedabad without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In Bench considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.
20. In the present case we find that without any reference to records merely on the report of the Director General, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without particularizing the role played by each of the officers charged. There were four charges against the respondent. With three of them he was not concerned. He offered explanation regarding the fourth charge but the disciplinary authority did not examine the same nor did it choose to appoint any inquiry officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated under 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and Director General, Anti Corruption bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. The Inquiry Officers, who had been appointed on after the other, ::34 :: O.A.No.370/2022 had just to examine the records to see if the alleged deviations and constructions were illegal and unauthorised and then as to who was responsible for condoning or approving the same against the bye-laws. It is nobody's case that respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the explanations of the state as to why delay occurred. In fact there was hardly any explanation worth consideration. In the circumstances the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated July 31, 1995 and directing the state to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated October 27, 1995 and June 1, 1996, the Tribunal rightly did not quash these two later memos.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ21. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ dismissed with costs.‖ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 16.8 Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court by referring the judgments passed by it in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Banni Singh (supra) Ahmedabad Bench and N. Radhakishan (supra) in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board [reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636], held as under :-
―6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in para 14 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fide intention issued the present charge memo against the appellant even though the alleged incident of issuance of sale deed was of the year 1990, which was 10 year prior to the issuance of charge memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Board.
7. The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition.
8. Our attention was also drawn to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Board in this appeal. Though some explanation was given, the explanation offered is not at all convincing. It is stated in the counter affidavit for the first time that the irregularity during the year 1990, for which disciplinary action had been initiated against the appellant in the year 2000, came to light in the audit report for the second half of 1994-1995.
9. Section 118 and 119 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1961 read thus :::35 :: O.A.No.370/2022
"118. At the end of every year, the Board shall submit to the Government an abstract of the accounts of its receipts and expenditure for such year.
119. The accounts of the Board shall be examined and audited once in every year by such auditor as the Government may appoint in this behalf."
10. Section 118 specifically provides for submission of the abstracts of the accounts at the end of every year and Section 119 relates to annual audit of accounts. These two statutory provisions have not been complied with at all. In the instant case the transaction took place in the year 1990. The Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, expenditure ought to have been considered in the accounts of Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 the succeeding year. In the instant case the audit report was 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document ultimately released in the 1994-1995. The explanation offered Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 for the delay in finalising the audit account cannot stand scrutiny in view of the above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 17. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from Ahmedabad service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of Bench the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel is appearing for the respondent. His submission that the period from the date of commission of the irregularities by the appellant to the date on which it came to the knowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delay on the part of the Board in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant has no merit and force. The stand now taken by the respondent in this Court in the counter affidavit is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay.
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry.
The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
::36 :: O.A.No.370/202212. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefit shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.‖ (emphasis supplied) 16.9 At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 693], the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH,―14. The facts as have been narrated above are not in dispute.Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa
JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 Two aspects which need to be considered are:
3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' (1) Whether the chargesheet issued to the Appellant by the Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Respondent-State would fall within the scope of observations that have been carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case (supra)?
Ahmedabad Bench (2) Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years) would in itself be a ground for quashing the chargesheet issued to the appellant?
15. As regards the first question in K.K. Dhawan case (supra), this Court carved out the following situations where the government is not precluded from taking disciplinary actions for violation of the Code of Conduct:--
―(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) If there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago ―though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great.‖ After carving out the above exceptions, this Court proceeded to further observe that mere technical violations or the fact that an order is wrong, if not falling under the above enumerated instances, does not warrant disciplinary actions. It was further reiterated that each case depends on its facts, and absolute rules cannot be postulated. The above instances as referred and reproduced herein above, are thus only a guide and not meant to be mandatorily adhere to without exception.::37 :: O.A.No.370/2022
16. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet fall under the category of a wrongful order, which does not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification. It appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the first question is answered in favor of the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL Appellant.
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. However, in the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite Ahmedabad the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the Bench department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings.
18. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of this court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh 1990 Supp SCC 738 , wherein the court noted that there was no reason to interfere with the quashing as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 12 years of delay. A reference should also be made to the decision of this Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636, where it has been reiterated that continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee for the mistakes committed by the department in initiating disciplinary proceedings.
19. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the Impugned Judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and consequently the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge stands restored."
16.10 In the case in hand, undisputedly, while applicant was working as TRO in the year 2005 and for alleged procedural lapses, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 13 long years i.e. in 2018.As noted herein above, in the charge memo dated ::38 :: O.A.No.370/2022 02.02.2018, nothing has been stated about the reasons for such inordinate delay nor any supporting documents to justify such belated action has been supplied to the applicant along with the charge memo. The only explanation offered by the department in their reply that in the year 2011 such irregularities were came into their knowledge, and thereafter keeping in view the advice tendered by the CVC, a impugned charge memo of 2018, was issued. However, no explanation whatsoever has been provided by the respondent authorities for the delay caused from the date of Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA so called auction of shares of defaulter parties and sale of it by the DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this applicant in the capacity of Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the Income Tax Act in the year 2005.
Ahmedabad 16.11 Suffice it to state that the respondents have not rebutted the fact Bench that all the documents related to auction of the shares of one M/s Dandi Salt Pvt.Ltd. including the details of proclamation of sale etc. are within their custody and within the knowledge of higher authorities since 2005.
16.12 Not only that, after receiving a complaint about the alleged procedure irregularities against the then Additional CIT, Surat Range, one Shri M.K.Gautam as also against the TRO, in respect to said auction of shares in the year 2011, the respondent authorities had taken long time in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant for which no satisfactory action has been placed on record except the CVC advise of the year 2011.
16.13 Thus, it can be seen that no reason is attributable upon the charged official for such administrative lapses in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings that too, after lapse of 13 years, for which, applicant cannot be allowed to suffer. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the impugned disciplinary proceedings, he has been deprived of regular promotion and such pendency has admittedly prejudiced his service progression.::39 :: O.A.No.370/2022
16.14 Having regard to the above quoted observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and discussions made hereinabove, we hold that the delay is institutional and not attributable to the applicant herein and has seriously prejudiced the applicant, as his promotion stalled and vigilance clearance withheld. Thus, the decision making process for initiation of departmental proceedings after 13 years of inordinate delay suffers from legal infirmities and cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law.
17. Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= So far as the issue whether the act complained off against the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= delinquent constitutes "misconduct" or are protected quasi-
1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 judicial functions? In this regard, it is required to mention that undisputedly the applicant herein, while working as TRO at Surat Ahmedabad in the year 2005 one Shri M.K.Gautam, was his immediate Bench supervisor/higher officer, who was working as Additional CIT, Surat Range at the relevant time. As noted herein above, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent department in the case of UOI Vs. M.K.Gautam (supra) had referred the charges levelled against the said Gautam wherein, it has been stated by the disciplinary authority that :
―............Thus, he failed in his supervisory duties by giving inappropriate directions to the TRO. Thus, by his aforesaid acts, Shri M.K. Gautam failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant; further, while holding a supervisory post, he did not take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion of the government servant for the time being under his control and authority. ....‖.
Further, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 8.8.2019 in the said Writ Petition, in para 8, held as under :-
―8. The allegation against the respondent was that he had not assessed the value of the trademark ―Dandi Salt‖, which was owned by the defunct company Dandi Salt Private Limited. The allegations against the respondent are such, which were known to the petitioner Department soon after he had allegedly committed the misconduct of permitting the sale of the shares of Dandi Salt Private Limited on first- come-first-serve basis.::40 :: O.A.No.370/2022
17.1 From the above, it is evident that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2005, the applicant was discharging his duties as TRO under Income Tax Act and his act has been subjected to approval of his higher authority i.e. the then Additional CIT, Surat Range, Shri M.K.Gautam. Suffice to state that undisputedly, the applicant was discharging his duties in a capacity of quasi judicial authority under the provisions of Income Tax Act, at the relevant time. His decision was subject to appeal. It is noticed that there is no allegation of acceptance of gratification or neither any corruption Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA nor any material has been placed on record along with the charge DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this memorandum, against the applicant herein. As noted document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 hereinabove, the allegation levelled against him is about only the procedural lapses which could have been rectified at that point Ahmedabad Bench itself 17.2 Further, the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of S. Rajguru Vs. UOI in OA 2815/2012 decided on 01.02.2013. In the said case said Shri S. Rajguru, a retired IRS (Income Tax) Officer of 1978 batch, aggrieved by charge memorandum dated 26.04.2012 has challenged its legality and validity mainly on the ground that the allegations levelled against him that while functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), Kochi, committed irregularity in the appeal order passed by him on 1.9.2005 in the case of one M/s. XYZ by deleting additions which had been banned by the assessing officers without proper verification of the facts and examination of the records, the alleged act of the applicant was performed by him in a quasi judicial capacity.
Therefore, the respondents ought not to have initiated departmental proceedings against him. By agreeing with the said submission of applicant therein, the CAT, Principal Bench, by referring the various judgments passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court on the point, held that the applicant discharged quasi judicial functions in a position of a quasi-judicial authority i.e. CIT (A).
::41 :: O.A.No.370/2022His action or error in law or mistake in law cannot be attracted to proceed against him treating the same as his misconduct.
17.3 The aforesaid order passed by CAT, Principal Bench in the matter of S. Rajguru (supra), has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Judgment dated 13.08.2014 in W.P. (C) No.5113/2014, titled Union of India Vs. S. Rajguru, the relevant paras of which reads as under:-
"7. ..... The Tribunal considered the contention of the parties and Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ framed the following questions for its consideration:-MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
―14. The controversies for our consideration and 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the determination are:
author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
(i) Whether the applicant has been charged on the decision taken by him as a quasi-judicial authority while discharging quasi-judicial functions and whether the Ahmedabad issue of Charge Memo is legally sustainable?
Bench
(ii) Whether there are procedural infirmities in issuing the impugned charge memo against the applicant?
(iii) Can the ground of delay be justified to quash and set aside the charge memo?‖
8. With respect to the first question, the Tribunal examined the Articles of Charge and held that they imputed that the respondent had committed certain errors of law or mistakes and in such cases, treating the same as misconduct was not warranted. The Tribunal further observed that in absence of any malafide intention and with no allegation of dishonest action, the decisions taken by the respondent could not be considered as lack of devotion to duty.
9. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in ZunjarraoBhikajiNargarkar v. Union of India and Others: (1999) 7 SCC 409 and held that since a CIT (Appeals) functions as a quasi- judicial authority and discharges quasi-judicial functions, in absence of any allegation of mala fide motive, arbitrary action or any question with respect to the integrity, the respondent was not liable to disciplinary action. The Tribunal was persuaded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagarkar (supra), wherein it was reiterated that quasi-judicial authorities are to function independently, without fear or favour. The fear of facing a disciplinary action, in the event a decision goes against the Government, cannot be permitted to be instilled in the minds of quasi-judicial authorities. In the present case, since the misconduct alleged was in respect of an action of a quasi-judicial nature, the Tribunal held that an error in delivering a decision could not form the basis of alleging misconduct and initiating disciplinary proceedings.
10. With respect to the second question, the Tribunal held that there were procedural infirmities because the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issue of charge memo against the respondent had been done at one go. The Tribunal held that this procedure was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed which envisaged that the disciplinary authority had to decide as to whether a ::42 :: O.A.No.370/2022 disciplinary action was called for and, once such decision had been taken, the disciplinary authority had to consult an independent agency like CVC to seek independent advice. It is only after the independent agency agreed with the disciplinary authority that charges could be framed against the delinquent official. The Tribunal observed that the procedure prescribed was to ensure proper application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The inputs that come between the first and second stage of the decision making process would be a guide to the disciplinary authority to take an informed decision in the matter. Since in this case this procedure had been truncated, the Tribunal found, that there was a procedural infraction, which in the given circumstances, had worked to the detriment of the respondent. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the charge memo had originated from a secret note given by the reporting officer, raising doubts as to the applicant's integrity. In Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL this respect also the prescribed procedure was not adopted. A secret note is required to be properly inquired into, after which the ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A Government servant is to be given an opportunity to defend himself 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 and only thereafter, a proper decision is to be taken by the competent authority on such secret note and whether the same should be kept in the ACR of the employee. In the present case, no such inquiry had been conducted and the respondent had no opportunity to respond to Ahmedabad the secret note before it was placed in his ACR. Bench
11. With regard to the third issue as to whether there was delay in initiation of the proceedings, the Tribunal found that there was no delay and the authorities had acted, once the note had been forwarded, in the shortest possible period.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal had erred grossly in relying on the decision in Nagarkar (supra) as the said case had not correctly appreciated a decision by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &Ors. vs. K.K. Dhawan: (1993) 2 SCC 56. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in the case of Union of India v. Duli Chand: (2006) 5 SCC 680, wherein the Supreme Court had held that the decision in Nagarkar's (supra) does not correctly represent the law and the view expressed in K.K. Dhawan (supra) would prevail.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though in the present case, there was no allegation that the respondent had acted in a manner which reflected on his integrity or that the respondent had shown any undue favour to the assessees in the four cases in respect of which misconduct had been alleged, nonetheless, a lack of devotion to duty was sufficient ground for alleging misconduct. In the present case, it was alleged that the respondent had shown a lack of devotion to duty and, accordingly, disciplinary proceedings against the respondent could not be faulted.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that even in cases, such as Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Anr.:
(2007) 4 SCC 566 as well as Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad &Anr.: (2007) 4 SCC 247, which were decided subsequent to the decision in the case of Duli Chand (supra), the Supreme Court had referred to the decision in the case of Nagarkar (supra) with approval. In the case of Ramesh Chander Singh (supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the case of Nagarkar (supra) held that if the court were to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial order they should have been strong ground to suspect officer's bona fides and the order itself should have been actuated by malice, bias or illegality.::43 :: O.A.No.370/2022
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
16. The short question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal had erred in holding that the Articles of Charge were not sustainable since they were based on quasi-judicial orders passed by the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals).
17. The Tribunal, after examining the facts and allegations, came to the conclusion that as there were no allegations that the respondent had acted malafide or for extraneous considerations, the allegations leveled only on the basis of the merits of the decisions rendered by the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals), could not be sustained.
18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the question Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= whether the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Nagarkar JODHPUR BENCH, (supra) was at variance with the law stated by the Supreme Court in Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 K.K. Dhawan (supra) is not relevant because even if the tests as laid B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 down by the Supreme Court in K.K. Dhawan (supra) are applied, the facts of the present case clearly indicate that disciplinary proceedings against the respondent are not maintainable. In the case of K.K. Dhawan (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
Ahmedabad Bench ―28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago ―though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great.‖
19. In K.K. Dhawan (supra), the Article of Charge framed against the employee mentioned that he had completed certain assessments ―(i) in an irregular manner, (ii) in undue haste, and (iii) apparently, ::44 :: O.A.No.370/2022 with a view to confer undue favour upon the assessees concerned‖. The Supreme Court had emphasised the allegation of undue favour upon the assessees concerned, and held that an officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the Court held that the employee, even though acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, would be subject to proceedings for misconduct. It was explained by the Supreme Court that it is not the correctness or legality of the decision that was being examined but the conduct of the employee in discharge of his duty as an officer.
20. In the present case, a plain reading of the Articles of Charge as well as the statement of imputations clearly indicate that the sole basis for making the charges is the correctness of the decisions rendered by the respondent while he was acting as CIT (Appeals).
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa21. The first Article of Charge relates to the decision rendered by the JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 respondent in the case of M/s Bhagirath Engineering Ltd. In that 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the case, the Assessing Officer had framed an assessment order whereby author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 certain unaccounted payments had been added to the income of the assessee. A sum of `14,78,500/- which was seized from one Anoop Kumar Shah was also added as unexplained income. Sh. Anoop Kumar Shah stated that he had received the income from the vice Ahmedabad Bench president of the assessee company and on the basis of this statement, the said income was brought to tax. The respondent held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis ofnotings and seized papers was without confronting the directors and managers and accountant of the assessee company. Similarly, the cash seized, which was held to be unaccounted money of the company, was brought to tax without recording any statement of the assessee company's directors, accountant or the cashier. It is alleged, in the statement of imputations, that the respondent did not take into account the statement of Sh. Anoop Kumar Shah while deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Apart from this statement, there is no other indication why the charge (that the respondent had acted without devotion of duty) had been levelled. A bare perusal of this charge indicates that it is entirely based on the decisions rendered by the respondent, which might disclose that he was incautious in his appreciation of the case or at worst were erroneous. There is, however, no other material to indicate that the respondent's conduct was either reckless or that he had acted in a malafide manner or for any extraneous consideration. The allegation remains that the respondent had committed an irregularity in the appeal order passed in that case by deleting the additions which had been made by the Assessing Officer. It is important to note that the respondent had provided reasons for why he had arrived at the decision that the Assessing Officer was in error in making the additions. It is apparent that the first Article of Charge is based purely on the merits of the decision and not the manner in which the respondent had acted.
22. The second Article of Charge relates to a decision whereby the respondent had set aside the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. The AO had rejected the books of accounts of the assessee on the basis that correct profits could not be deduced from those books of accounts and had proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee concerned. The respondent had held that an AO did not have the power to reject the books of accounts of an assessee under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On an appeal by the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had held that the interpretation given by the respondent to the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act was not correct. It is on this basis, that a charge ::45 :: O.A.No.370/2022 has been made that respondent acted against the provisions of law. This, at worst, is a case where the respondent committed an error of law. An error of law cannot form the basis of subjecting a quasi- judicial authority to disciplinary proceedings. As held in K.K. Dhawan (supra), it is not the decision rendered by a quasi-judicial authority which is to be tested but the manner in which he had acted. In the case on hand, there is no allegation that there were any attendant features that would indicate that the respondent had acted on extraneous considerations, recklessly or in a manner so as to favour the assessee.
23. The third Article of Charge is based on a decision rendered by the respondent in respect of an assessee where certain income had been brought to tax. The assessee's case was that the additions made by the AO had already been considered in the assessment of the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ assessee's wife. The respondent accepted the said contention and deleted the additions in income made by the AO. Some of these MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, deletions made by the respondent were reversed in appeal by the S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been alleged that the 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 respondent had deleted the additions made, without proper verification of the facts and the examination of the records. In essence, the allegation is that the respondent had committed an error Ahmedabad in fact, by accepting the statement canvassed by the assessee, that the Bench income that was being assessed in his hands had already been assessed in the hands of his wife. It is important to note that the proceedings before the CIT (Appeals) are adversarial proceedings where an assessee asserts a set of facts and/or urges propositions of law; the AO defends the assessment order by controverting the same. It is contended by the respondent that the assessee had produced the assessment orders of his wife and asserted that certain additions that were made in the hands of the assessee had already been made in the hands of his wife. It does not appear that the AO had refuted this contention. The allegation against the respondent is that he did not verify the facts from the assessment records of the wife of the assessee. This too, at worst, is an error of fact. Out of the large number of deletions made by the respondent, some of them were rejected by the Tribunal. The allegations also do not indicate that the respondent lacked devotion to duty or had acted with an ulterior motive. The charge, essentially, is that he had committed an error while rendering his decision as a CIT (Appeals). As pointed out earlier, a mere error of fact or a law cannot be a basis of commencing proceedings against a quasi-judicial authority.
24. The fourth Article of Charge relates to yet another order rendered by the respondent, where he permitted the assessee to take a new ground in appeal. This ground was that no search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee before the block assessment proceedings were initiated and accordingly, those proceedings were invalid. This ground was upheld by the respondent and he set aside the assessment order on the basis that a search warrant had not been issued in the name of the assessee. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the respondent was wrong in allowing the assessee to take a fresh ground for the first time in appellate proceedings. It has been asserted by the respondent that the Tribunal had not given a finding as to whether initiation of assessment proceedings against the assessee without a search warrant in his name was valid. The only limited question, on which the order made by the respondent was set aside was that he was wrong in admitting a new ground. This case too does not indicate that the respondent had acted recklessly, malafidely or with ulterior motives. There is no allegation that the ::46 :: O.A.No.370/2022 conduct of the respondent was unbecoming of an officer. The charge made against the respondent is only on the basis of a decision which, according to the Revenue, was erroneous.
25. It can be seen from the above that the gravamen of the charges levelled against the respondent are not based on his conduct. Although it has been alleged that certain decisions rendered indicate a lack of devotion to duty, but a bare perusal of the statement of imputation and the Articles of Charge indicate that the gravamen of the charges is only that the respondent had rendered decisions which, according to the Revenue, were erroneous. This is certainly not the basis on which the proceedings for misconduct can be commenced against a officer who is charged with a quasi-judicial function. In K.K. Dhawan's case (supra) there was a specific allegation that the Officer had completed the assessment ―apparently Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ with a view to confer to undue favour upon the assessee's concern‖. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in that case must be read in MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, the context of the facts placed before the Court. Although, the Court S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 had held that where an officer had acted in a manner which would 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 reflect upon his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty, a disciplinary action could be initiated. However, an act of an Officer which would reflect on his devotion to duty must be read in Ahmedabad the context of his conduct and not the correctness of the decisions Bench rendered by him in a multi-tiered appellate structure. The conduct of an officer must be alleged to be one, which reflects recklessness or complete disregard for the function that he is performing. Mere erroneous decisions on account of a mistake of law or facts, cannot be the basis of commencing proceedings for misconduct.
26. The decision in the case of K.K. Dhawan (supra) cannot be read to mean that misconduct proceedings can be commenced, alleging lack of devotion of duty, in cases where the decisions rendered by quasi-judicialauthority are alleged to be erroneous. There has to be something more than mere allegation of erroneous decisions to charge an employee for misconduct; the conduct of an employee must be alleged to be reckless or for motives. In absence of such imputations, a charge made solely on the basis of a decision rendered by a quasi-judicial authority would not be sustainable.
27. The decision in the case of Nagarkar (supra) and in K.K. Dhawan (supra) are not at variance in the above respect and a wrong or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi-judicial authority or a mistake of law or an error in facts or law, cannot form the basis of initiating disciplinary proceedings.
28. The petitioner's contention that the tribunal erred in relying on the statement of law in Nagarkar (supra) as the law stated by the Supreme Court in that case is no longer good law, also cannot be accepted. In the case of Ramesh Chander Singh (supra) a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of Nagarkar (supra) and held as under:-
―17. In Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India [(1999) 7 SCC 409] this Court held that wrong exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi-judicial authority or mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law cannot be the basis for initiating disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the judicial officer conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the High Court by ::47 :: O.A.No.370/2022 virtue of its power under Article 235 of the Constitution may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, under such circumstances it should be kept in mind that the Judges at all levels have to administer justice without fear or favour.
Fearlessness and maintenance of judicial independence are very essential for an efficacious judicial system. Making adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings would ultimately harm the judicial system at the grassroot level.‖
29. It is relevant to note that the decision in Ramesh Chand Singh (supra) was delivered by a bench of three judges on 26.02.2007, is subsequent to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand (supra).
30. It is also necessary to bear in mind that a CIT (Appeals), Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa essentially has to decide the cases based on the contentions JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 canvassed before him. Proceedings before a CIT (Appeals) are 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the adversarial proceedings and are bound to be decided in favour of author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 one or the other party. It is necessary to ensure that a CIT (Appeals) or any other quasi-judicial authority is not put under any pressure in discharging his functions. The idea that the Government could commence disciplinary proceedings if, the decisions were rendered Ahmedabad Bench against the department, would be pernicious to the effectiveness of the role that is required to be performed by the CIT (Appeals).
31. We concur with the reasoning of the Tribunal that a quasi- judicial authority is to act without fear and levelling charges which are based solely on the decisions rendered by the quasi-judicial authority would certainly instill fear in the minds of the officers and, thus, cannot be permitted.
32. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. This petition and the application are, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
17.4 It is important to mention that the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court was challenged by the respondent department before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 33895/2014 (UOI Vs. S. Rajguru), the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.01.2015. Thus, the findings given by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi and the Tribunal, as referred hereinabove, have attained finality.
17.5 The present case the allegations levelled against the applicant are related to way back of the year 2005 while he was discharging his duty as Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The gravamen of the statement of imputation and the article of charges is only that the applicant had rendered decision which, according to the department was erroneous. This is not the basis on which the proceedings for misconduct can be commenced against a officer who is charged with a quasi judicial function.
::48 :: O.A.No.370/2022Mere erroneous decisions on account of a mistake of law or facts, cannot be the basis of commencing proceedings for misconduct. Further, it is held by Hon‟ble the Apex Court that there has to be something more than mere allegation of erroneous decision to charge an employee for misconduct. In the case of the applicant while he was working as TRO, the provision of Rule 4 of Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act, stipulates about the power of attachment and sale of movable properties is vested in Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) and it gives sole discretion to TRO who Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA is vested this power under the statute to decide the time and place DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this of auction of a movable property. Thus, it establishes that the document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 applicant was discharging his duties at the relevant time in a capacity of quasi judicial authority. Suffice to reiterate that any Ahmedabad Bench decision or order passed by a TRO, is subject to appeal and any injured person may sue.
17.6 Therefore, we observe that applicant was functioning as Tax Recovery Officer, exercising statutory powers under the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that erroneous exercise of quasi-judicial power does not constitute mis-conduct unless accompanied by mala fides, recklessness, or extraneous considerations. We have already quoted the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of S. Rajguru (supra) and keeping in view the said observations, we hold that there is no allegation of bribery, corrupt motive, or personal gain.
Charges are relating to essential procedural lapses/errors of judgment, which at best are appealable errors and not a disciplinary misconduct. Further, the Protection under Section 293 of Income Tax Act & the Judges Protection Act, 1985, cannot be brushed aside casually. As such, we conclude this issue by observing that disciplinary proceedings founded solely on alleged procedural irregularities in quasi-judicial acts are legally unsustainable.
18. At this stage, it is apt to mention that since this Tribunal is convinced that the applicant herein, while working as TRO at ::49 :: O.A.No.370/2022 Surat in the year 2005 he was discharging his duties in the capacity of quasi judicial authority and as noted hereinabove, that the respondents failed to explain inordinate delay of 13 years to initiate departmental proceedings and thereby the impugned charge memorandum is not tenable in the eye of law. Therefore, the foundation of the said disciplinary proceedings is vitiated and not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned charge memorandum suffers from legal infirmities. Therefore, all the subsequent acts/steps taken by the respondents herein have to fall flat in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this laid down in the case of CMD Coal India Limited Vs. Ananta document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Sahay [reported in 2011 (5) SCC 152], on the application of legal maxim, "Sublato fundamento cadit opus". Ahmedabad Bench Having said so, we do not find it appropriate to deal with further grievances of the applicant that Inquiry Officer became functus officio after expiry of six months under Rule 14(24) CCS (CCA) Rules in absence of any written approval for extension of time limit beyond six months and the grievance regarding approval of competent authority to institute a departmental proceeding.
19. Further grievance of the applicant is that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in an illegal manner by proceeding further despite the operation of Tribunal‟s interim order, is concerned, we observe that this Tribunal vide its interim order dated 28.09.2022, restrained the respondent department to take further action in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by virtue of impugned charge memorandum. However, the respondents sought advice from the UPSC and issued a Memorandum dated 06.12.2023. Such a conduct, prima facie, undermines the judicial discipline. Thus, further proceedings undertaken during the operation of interim order, are legally questionable and the same are not tenable in the eye of law after an interim order was issued by this Tribunal and the matter was admitted.
::50 :: O.A.No.370/202220. With regard to relief of promotion to JCIT (ad hoc and regular), we observe that ad-hoc promotion already granted earlier to the applicant. Regular promotion was denied due to pendency of proceedings. Once disciplinary proceedings are found vitiated, sealed cover loses its foundation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, [reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010]. As such applicant is entitled to review DPC with all consequential benefits.
21. Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O= Conclusion of the above analysis is that for the unexplained CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40 3ee0d4591882f372ef inordinate delay of 13 years in initiating the disciplinary db7b9922bd, RA PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B A9D18167E0260A2A 1B2AB7E0C85B7E6 MEHTA E19FD988D3007062 B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.11 14:05:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 proceedings against the applicant that too for his conduct which was related to his duties he had discharged in the capacity of Ahmedabad quasi-judicial in nature, the impugned charge memorandum dated Bench 02.02.2018, is not tenable in the eye of law. The Inquiry Report dated 20.10.2021 is declared as non est in law in the light of the discussions made herein above.
22. In the result, the present O.A. is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned Charge Memorandum dated 02.02.2018 (Annex. A/1), is quashed and set aside. The Inquiry Report dated 20.10.2021 (Annex. A/2), is held to be non est in the eye of law, as also, the impugned communication dated 29.03.2022 (Annex.A/3) issued by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequent communications are consequently legally unsustainable and thus the same are also quashed.
(ii) Respondents are directed to convene a Review DPC and consider the case of applicant for his regular promotion to the grade of JCIT, at par with his immediate junior(s), with seniority, notional fixation and consequential benefits as per extant rules.
(iii) The above exercise shall be complied with within sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
23. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
::51 :: O.A.No.370/2022The interim order issued by this Tribunal is made absolute.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (JayeshV.Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
Digitally signed by
JITENDRA RAJ
MEHTA
DN: C=IN, O=
CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=
JODHPUR BENCH,
Phone=
1fe52cf9149e9d502fa
JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40
jrm
3ee0d4591882f372ef
db7b9922bd,
RA PostalCode=342006,
S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B
A9D18167E0260A2A
1B2AB7E0C85B7E6
MEHTA E19FD988D3007062
B, CN=JITENDRA
RAJ MEHTA
Reason: I am the
author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.11
14:05:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.1.0
Ahmedabad
Bench
::52 :: O.A.No.370/2022
Digitally signed by
JITENDRA RAJ
MEHTA
DN: C=IN, O=
CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=
JODHPUR BENCH,
Phone=
1fe52cf9149e9d502fa
JITEND 05caeba2060aeaa40
3ee0d4591882f372ef
db7b9922bd,
RA PostalCode=342006,
S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
RAJ EE3A7297A033A60B
A9D18167E0260A2A
1B2AB7E0C85B7E6
MEHTA E19FD988D3007062
B, CN=JITENDRA
RAJ MEHTA
Reason: I am the
author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.11
14:05:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader
Version: 2025.1.0
Ahmedabad
Bench