Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Union Of India vs Shri S.K. Srivastava on 7 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH RA No.391/2011 in OA 2238/2011 New Delhi this the 7th day of December, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi-110001. ..Review Applicants. (By Advocates : Sh. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aljo S. and Shri Rajesh Katyal.) Versus 1. Shri S.K. Srivastava, S/o Late Shri B.S. Bhaskar, R/o CRD C-II/9, Pandara Park, New Delhi-110003. 2. Shri Sunil Mitra, C/o Secretary, DOPT, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3. Shri Prakash Chandra (IRS 73039). 4. Shri S.S. Rana (IRS 75014). 5. Shri Binay K. Jha (IRS 83004). 6. Ms. Sushmana Sen (IRS 99005). 7. Ms. Ashima Neb (IRS 99010). Review Respondents. (Respondent No.1 in person ) (Review respondents No.3 to 7 to be served through Chairman, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi-110001.) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
The official respondents in the OA have moved the instant Review Application seeking certain clarifications on our orders passed on 14.11.2011 in OA No.2238/2011. The operative part of the order reads as follows :-
20. Admittedly, 3 of the private respondents i.e. Respondent No.3, 4 and 7 are no longer dealing with the subjects, because two of them have retired and one is away in the field and not likely to handle the subject. In case of remaining 3 private respondents, namely, respondent No.5, 6 and 8, in case of 5th respondent Shri S. S. Rana who has become Member (Revenue) in CBDT is not in direct charge of HRD and will not be dealing with the applicants case. It is seen that the allegations are against the Respondent No.6 & 8. In this context, it would be appropriate for us to direct that the 6th and 8th respondents against whom certain personal allegations have been leveled (we are not going into the veracity of the allegations) should not deal with the applicants case. HRD and V&L Section of the CBDT, we are informed, have large number of officers from whom the competent authority can select the people of appropriate rank/grade to deal with the cases/matters of the applicant. Further, the impugned order indicates that the applicants case would be still handled through the V&L section by providing secretariat assistance and coordination. The only observation which we would like to leave with the competent authority is that 1st and 2nd respondents must ensure that the officers against whom the applicant had leveled some personal allegations should not deal/ process/ handle the matters of vigilance, disciplinary and associated matters relating to the applicant. The other officers available in the organization of the CBDT can handle his case. In this regard, the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to issue appropriate clarifications.
21. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case we come to the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.6.2011 is valid and sustainable in the eyes of law as it does not indicate as to who should deal with which subjects. The said order would only need a clarificatory directions by the competent official respondent to the effect that the officers against whom allegations have been made by the applicant, would not in any manner deal with the applicants cases.
22. In terms of the above orders, directions and observations, the OA is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
2. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicants would submit that the directions of the Tribunal are being implemented, but on behalf of the review applicants he would seek certain clarifications. His submission is that the direction of the Tribunal that two officers who have been directed not to deal/process/handle the matters relating to the applicant in the OA, is being done but large number of cases filed by the applicant are being adjudicated in the Tribunal and High Court and those are of such nature and magnitude that the officers being posted to handle the same afresh would not be in a position to cope up to brief the learned Senior Advocate on such issues. He would, therefore, seek clarification to grant sometime for the two officers to brief him along with the officers posted/to be posted to look after those matters. His concern is that the officers posted in the place of those two officers would need some time to get fully acquainted with the subject. He, therefore, submits that a stipulated time frame may be given within which they would brief him along with other officers. He is afraid that if the said clarification is not issued by the Tribunal, the applicant would level malacious allegations and file cases against those two officers.
3. At this stage, the first review respondent who was present in the court vehemently opposed the above contentions and submitted that the CBDT having large number of competent officers who could study the relevant files to brief the learned Sr. Advocate on each of the cases, there would be no necessity for these two officers (Shri B.K. Jha and Ms. Ashima Neb) to be allowed for the said purpose.
4. Having heard the above contentions, we take note that the number of cases which are being heard in the Tribunal and Honble High Court of Delhi are quite large. There is no doubt that the officers positioned/to be positioned in place of those two officers to deal with the matters relating to the 1st review respondent would not know the setting, perspective and background of each of those cases. In the interest of justice, we issue clarification that those two officers who have been directed not deal/process/handle the matters of vigilance/disciplinary and associated matters relating to the first review respondent, are authorized to brief the learned Sr. Advocate along with their counterpart already positioned or to be position on the cases coming up in the Tribunal and High Court only for a period of two weeks from today.
5. In terms of our above clarification, the Review Application is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /rk/