Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bobbili Jagadeswara Rao vs Income Tax Department on 14 March, 2023
OA/31/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/020/31/2023
HYDERABAD, this the 14th day of March, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Administrative Member
Bobbili Jagadeeswara Rao,
S/o. B. Krishna, Aged about 48 years,
Occ: Senior Tax Assistant (Group. C),
O/o. Principal Commissioner of Income,
AU-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh,
R/o. Door No.7-10-32,
Andhra University Out Gate Down,
Visakhapatnam.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Sri KRKV. Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep. by
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
A.P. & Telangana Regions,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS),
2nd floor, SVR Plaza, Mogalrajpuram,
Vijayawada.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Inquiry Officer), Circle-I,
No.27-1-114, Manishankar Spectrum,
Adithya Nagar, Nellore - 524 002.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sri D. Laxminarayana Rao, Sr. PC for CG)
----
Page 1 of 6
OA/31/2023
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member) The present O.A. is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"........to call for the records pertaining to Memorandum issued vide No.1/CBI, ACB/Vig/DP/CIT(TDS), Vja/2019-20 dated 27.2.2020 and enquiry notice dated 5.1.2023 and declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the disciplinary case initiated vide Memorandum dated 27.2.2020 pending criminal trial as illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution and direct the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memorandum dated 27.2.2020 in abeyance till finalization of the criminal trial on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam in CC No.3/2018."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Senior Tax Assistant I the office of Additional Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Visakhapatnam, faced a complaint that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- to get the complaint of tax evasion closed by the concerned Income Tax Officer. Based on it, the CBI registered a case vide FIR in RC No.15(A)/2017 on 27.9.2017 against the applicant and the Income Tax Officer under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Final report was filed by the CBI on 26.12.2017 in the Court of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam, alleging commission of offences by the applicant. The Income Tax Officer, who was in FIR accused was transposed as witness against the applicant. It is submitted that in pursuance of the recommendation given by the CBI on the very same allegation, which was covered in the above said criminal charge sheet, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned Memorandum dated 27.2.2020 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The allegation and the evidence in the criminal and the departmental proceedings are one and Page 2 of 6 OA/31/2023 the same. It is contended by the applicant that there are complex questions of facts and law in both the proceedings as the applicant, who is working in the lower rungs of the department, would never be in a position to close a tax evasion complaint received against an assessee.
3. The applicant while denying the charges in the departmental proceedings in the reply dated 17.3.2020 given by him stated that he is neither in a position to do any official favour nor disfavour to any one by virtue of his lower level position. The 3rd respondent was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The applicant's request to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance was rejected by taking a general stand vide reply dated 15.10.2020 without specifying any reason. The Inquiry Officer issued Notice dated 5.1.2023 fixing the date of inquiry on 13.01.2023. When the applicant requested vide representation dated 5.1.2023 to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance, he was informed that it is not possible to do so. It is the contention of the applicant that if the disciplinary proceedings are not stayed, it would cause serious prejudice to his case in criminal trial. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgement dated 10.2.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No.27373/20021, the judgement dated 19.1.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (M.P) and the judgement dated 17.2.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P. No.7762/2022 in support his case.
4. Respondents filed reply stating that when the incident of acceptance of illegal gratification is same, both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are bound to revolve around the same facts. Since the issue Page 3 of 6 OA/31/2023 involved, allegations, evidences relevant to the incident are same in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings, there is no prejudice caused to the applicant on account of simultaneous proceedings because the proceedings are based on facts and evidences relevant to the incident which cannot undergo change between different proceedings and the applicant will be able to have all the opportunities to defend his case. It is further stated by them that the applicant being a person worked in Tapal Section had the advantage of taking printout from the original tax evasion petition received from the Investigation Wing of the department.
5. It is the sum and substance of the argument of the respondents hat the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether different and distinct and as such, there is no bar on the Disciplinary Authority in conducting simultaneous departmental proceedings. Respondents pointed out that the Inquiry Officer rightly issued notice to the applicant after expiry of time as granted by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 17.9.2021 in WP No.22769 of 2021 wherein it was clearly mentioned that if the criminal proceedings are not concluded within a period of one year, it is open for the department to take a decision in the matter. They relied upon the DOPT's OM dated 21.7.2016 and the Circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi on the subject. They also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India through its Secretary & Another in Civil Appeal No.1912/2015 (JT 2015(2) SC 487).
Page 4 of 6
OA/31/2023
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
7. A perusal of the history of the applicant's case makes it clear that based on the CBI proceedings, Respondent No.2 issued Charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2020 initiating Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The applicant denied the charges and the 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Inquiry Officer. On rejecting his request to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance by the Inquiry Officer, the applicant filed OA No.683/2020 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal granted stay of departmental proceedings vide orders dated 4.11.2020 & 15.6.2021. Later, the O.A. was dismissed vide final order dated 26.7.2021. Challenging the same, the applicant filed W.P. No.22769/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.9.2021 directed the Department to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance for a period of one year and if the criminal proceedings were not concluded by that date, it is open for the department to take a decision in the matter. The facts that the time granted by the Hon'ble High Court lapsed and the criminal case did not progress prompted the respondents to proceed further in the departmental proceedings.
8. In the circumstances narrated above, we find that protection was granted to the applicant by the judicial forums for a certain period and thereafter, the respondents have acted as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.22769/2021. The judgements relied upon by the applicant are of no help to him in the given circumstances. We are of the opinion that the action of the respondents is in accordance with law and, Page 5 of 6 OA/31/2023 therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. The applicant shall co- operate with the authorities in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide Charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2020. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B. ANAND) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/pv/
Page 6 of 6