Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Dr Anand Kishor Pandey vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 10 February, 2026
::1 ::
O.A.No.221/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No.221/2023
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)
Dr. Anand Kishore Pandey S/o Dr. Shankar Prasad Pandey,
aged about 41 years, presently serving as
Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit-4(2)(2),
Ahmedabad, under Pr. CIT, AU-4, Ahmedabad
Address for communication : C-504, Aastha Emerald,
Behind Ranna Park Bus Stop, Shastri Nagar,
Ghalodia, Ahmedabad - 380061.
...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S.Rao)
Ahmedabad
Bench
Versus
1. Union of India
notice to be served through its Secretary
to the Government of India,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,Government of India,
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. Shri Rahul Garg, IRS,
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JITENDRA
OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3
72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7
RAJ MEHTA
E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit),
(Disciplinary Authority)
Department of Income Tax,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
100 Feet Road, Satellite, Vejalpur,
Ahmnedabad- 380 015.
4. Shri N.J.Vyas, IRS,
Additional CIT (Audit),Ahmedabad,
(Inquiring Authority),
Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,7th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan,
100 Feet Road, Satellite, Vejalpur,
AHMEDABAD - 380 015.
::2 ::
O.A.No.221/2023
5. Shri Saurabh Garg, IRS,
DCIT/ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1),Ahmedabad,
(Presenting Officer),
Department of Income Tax,Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,
4th Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan,
Panjrapole, Ambawadi,
Ahmedabad-380 015.
6. Shri Satbir Singh, IRS (Retd.),
(former Pr. CIT, Valsad)
No. 904, Shiv Shakti Apartments,
Sector -54, Gurugram - 122003 (Haryana),
7. The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Gujarat Region,
O/o Pr.CCIT, Gujarat, Ahmedabad,
Second Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 3980 009.
Ahmedabad ....... Respondents
Bench
(By Advocate:Mr.Chirayu Mehta)
O R D E R
Per Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J) In the instant O.A., the applicant being aggrieved with the Charge Memorandum dated 12.12.2022 (Annex.A/1) and the orders appointing inquiring officer and the presenting officer dated 05.06.2023, passed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Disciplinary authority, has filed the present O.A. under Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, seeking the following SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 reliefs :-
"(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 impugned documents at Annexure A/1 to AnnexureA/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 impugned Charge Memorandum bearing No.CIT (Audit) /ABD/ 2022-23 /526 dated 12.12.2022 at Annexure A/1 hereto issued by the respondent no. 3 herein holding and declaring the same to have been issued / passed by the respondent no. 3 herein in mala fide exercise of his powers as ::3 ::
O.A.No.221/2023the disciplinary authority and in total violation of the statutory provisions contained in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; (B-2) quash and set aside the aforesaid two impugned orders bearing No. CIT/Audit /Ahmedabad / Inquiry Officer / AKP / 2023-24 at Annexure - A/2 hereto and the Order No. CIT / Audit / Ahmedabad / Presenting Officer / AKP / 2023-24, both dated 05.06.2023 at Annexure A/3 hereto, holding and declaring the same to have been issued / passed by the respondent no. 3 herein without any competence or power or authority with a mala fide motive and intention on the respondent no. 3 herein and also in total violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965;
(C) grant such other and 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 had joined the services of the Department of Income Ahmedabad Tax as Income Tax Inspector, Jamnagar. During April 2021, on his Bench request, he was transferred to NIMHR, Sehore, MP on deputation as an Administrative Officer.
2.2 After lapse of about five years, while serving in NIMHER, an order dated 30.12.2021 issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (Vig.), Western Region, Mumbai, was issued informing therein that on vigilance inspection of his work as ITO, Ward-3, Vapi, during 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, various shortcomings, Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, omissions/commissions and procedural lapses were noticed and he JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' was called upon to submit his version on the findings of the vigilance Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 inspection of the work done by him while being posted as ITO, ward- 3, Vapi.
2.3 On receipt of the said letter 30.12.2021, he submitted his detailed reply/explanation to the CIT (OSD), I/C Additional DIT (Vig), Mumbai. Since there was no further communication from the Vigilance Cell, Mumbai, he had a bona fide belief that the detailed explanation which was furnished by him to the Vigilance Wing was to the satisfaction of that authority and that the said matter stood closed.
::4 ::
O.A.No.221/20232.4 However, in the month of January 2023 while the applicant was on deputation at NIMHR, he was served with a major penalty Charge Memorandum under dated 12.12.2022 (Annex.A/1) issued by the respondent No. 3, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein, it has been alleged that while he was working as ITO Ward Nos. 3 & 7 at Vapi during August 2014 to May 2017, failed to main assessment records and the proceedings as prescribed under the Manual of Office Procedure and notings made by him do not meet the criteria as per Para 3.4.5 (Chapter-II) of the Manual of Office Procedure, Vol. II and further alleged that he had completed the assessment of the several assesses without due diligence by not making proper inquiries on the issues of cash deposits and their other account details and thus failed to bring their correct taxable income.
Ahmedabad Bench 2.5 On receipt of the said Charge Memorandum dated 12.12.2022, he submitted his detailed representation on 05.01.2023 requesting the respondent No. 3 for allowing inspection of original records and the RUDs and in response to it, the respondent No. 3 by addressing a letter dated 10.01.2023 to the Pr. CIT, Valsad, requested to allow inspection of the relied upon documents (RUDs) to the delinquent officer. However, no such inspection was provided to the applicant nor any communication in this regard received by him from the office JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, of ECIT, Valsad.
SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 2.6 Since applicant was directed by the disciplinary authority to submit his written reply to the charge memo, accordingly, he had submitted his brief interim reply dated 12.01.2023, wherein, apart from denying the charges leveled against him, it was also contended therein that as per the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Green World Corporation reported in [(2009) 314 ITR 81/181 Taxman 111 (SC), wherein it was held that "an order of assessment passed by the assessing officer should not be interfered with only, because another view is possible. Further it is also stated that he discharged his duties as Assessing Officer in a capacity of ::5 ::O.A.No.221/2023
quasi judicial authority and the investigation of the case and the assessment how it is to be done is a domain of the AO, thus, cannot be questioned on the manner of investigation when there is nothing on record to prove any mala fide on the part of the AO. Even there is no allegation against the applicant for any gratification etc. in respect to the assessments concluded by him at the relevant time. Further, the applicant also categorically submitted his reply that this reply may only be treated as a brief interim reply based on the records/details available with him. The detailed comprehensive reply to the charge memorandum will be submitted at the earliest within the time limit allowed after providing of entire case records / documents to him (Annexs. A/8 refers).
2.7 However, without supplying all the RUDs and other relevant records, Ahmedabad Bench the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 16.01.2023 called upon the applicant to submit his final reply by 27.01.2023.
2.8 Pending his submission of final reply to the charge memorandum, he submitted a formal written representation to the CIT (Admin. & TPS), O/o Pr. CCIT, Gujarat Ahmedabad, and prayed for his repatriation from NIMHR and posting him at Ahmedabd.
2.9 Thereafter, though, the respondents have not supplied the complete Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, set of records on which the charge memorandum has been issued, but, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document as per the directions of the DA the applicant submitted his detailed Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 defence before the disciplinary authority on 26.01.2023, wherein, he had submitted detailed explanation in respect to the alleged charges and demonstrated that he had not committed any misconduct, as alleged and, accordingly, requested to drop the proceedings (Annex.A/11 refers).
2.10 Thereafter, case records were received from the Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai and the same are available with the ITO Ward 7 Vapi and applicant might inform a suitable date for inspection of the records. It has been averred by the applicant that as the disciplinary ::6 ::O.A.No.221/2023
authority has given a last opportunity till 27.01.2023, applicant had no option but to submit his written statement of defence on 26.01.2023 depend on his knowledge. As stated, vide communication dated 02.02.2023 applicant herein came to be repatriated back to his parent department.
2.11 In the meantime, the applicant came to be repatriated back to his parent department on 31.05.2023. In view of the said interim development whereby Pr. CCIT, Gujarat Ahmedabad (the respondent No. 7 herein), being the Cadre Controlling Authority for the cadre of ITO, vide order dated 12.05.2023 posted the applicant under the Pr.
CIT, AU-4, Ahmedabad and he resumed his services as ITO / AU-4 (2)(2) under the Pr. CIT, AU-4, Ahmedabad.
2.12 Subsequently, vide letter dated 30.01.2023 the office of ITO, Ward-7, Ahmedabad Bench conveyed to the applicant that the case records have been received from the Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai, and is available in this office. Accordingly, he was directed to inspect the RUDs on a suitable date (Annex.A/14 refers).In response to it the applicant vide his letter dated 16.02.2023, conveyed to ITO Ward-7, Vapi that since he was granted to file his written statement / defence statement before the DA till 27.01.2023 only and in the said circumstances applicant left with no option to submit his reply by 26.01.2023 and accordingly, he had submitted his reply / written statement on 26.01.2023 to the Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 disciplinary authority.
2.13 It is stated that despite two voluminous written statements of defence dated 12.01.2023 and 26.01.2023 submitted before the disciplinary authority and demonstrate therein that charges levelled against the applicant are not tenable and the same are baseless in the light of provisions of the Income Tax Act as well the material available on record, however, the disciplinary authority in his undue anxiety to oblige his erstwhile retired colleague Shri Satbir Singh, the then Pr.
CIT, and to teach a lesson to the applicant for being one of the signatories of the resolution dated 27.02.2017 submitted against said ::7 ::
O.A.No.221/2023Shri Satbir Singh, went to the extent of not even considering the applicant‟s statements of defence and consequently nominated respondent No. 4 as an Inquiring Authority and respondent No. 5, as Presenting Officer on 05.06.2023.
2.14 The applicant herein appeared before the inquiry authority and requested to supply certified copies of record and materials based on which the charge memorandum dated 12.12.2022 came to be issued to him, as prior to his submission of the written statement of defence on 26.01.2023, such documents were not provided to him. Again the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 30.06.2023 to the IO requesting for supply of RUDs. Thereafter, vide communication dated 6.7.2023 the respondent No. 3 directed the applicant to collect certified copies of the relied upon documents (RUDs) and relevant Ahmedabad Bench material in respect to the charge memorandum from the office of ITO (HQ) (Audit), Ahmedabad. Thus, it is evident from the tenure of issuance of the charge memo and repeated requests of the applicant to supply the RUDs are as such same were not available with the respondent No. 3 at the time of issuance of the charge memo dated 12.12.2022. The said documents were in possession with the Director of Income Tax (Vig.), Mumbai, authority and the respondent No. 3 driven with his malicious motive under the pressure of respondent JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, No. 6 herein issued the charge memorandum and to ruin the career of SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the applicant decided to continue with the disciplinary proceedings though there is no material to support the alleged charges of misconduct that too for the work done by the applicant in a capacity of quasi judicial authority.
Hence, this O.A.
3. Mr. M.S.Rao, learned counsel for the applicant in support of the prayer sought in this OA mainly submitted as under :-
3.1 That initiation of the impugned disciplinary proceedings by the respondents are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and without ::8 ::O.A.No.221/2023
authority of law and the same are contrary to the law settled on the subject.
3.2 The allegations levelled in the impugned charge memo dated 12.12.2022 against the applicant herein, are in relation to the decisions taken by him while he was working as "Assessing Officer"
(AO) viz. in the capacity as "quasi judicial authority‟. The alleged assessments of the period in question were appellable orders. In this regard it is submitted that as per Section 2 (7A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an Income Tax Officer, an ACIT, a DCIT and JCIT is an "Assessing Officer" and when such Assessing Officer is involved in the assessment of income tax returns filed by the assesses, his role is that of a "quasi judicial officer".
Further, it is alleged that while applicant was discharging his Ahmedabad Bench duties as „Assessing Officer‟, at the relevant time i.e. 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, he did not follow the provisions contained in the Manual of Office Procedure Vol.-II. In this regard, it is stated that as a matter of fact, the aforesaid MOP Vol.II, is not binding on him, while he discharges his quasi judicial duties as an „Assessing Officer‟. To substantiate the said submission learned counsel for applicant has vehemently argued that an identical stand was taken up by the Income Tax Department before the Hon‟ble Apex Court by filing an Affidavit in a case bearing No. SLP (Diary) No. 3269/2024 while challenging Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa on 15.03.2023 passed in ITA No. 44 of 2022. The respondent Income Tax Department at Page No. 158 of the paper book of the said SLP had taken a categorical stand to the effect that, "Manual of Office Procedure being not an instruction issued by the CBDT in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can never be equated or considered to be an instruction or circular or notification to cast an obligation on the part of the officials to follow it."
::9 ::O.A.No.221/2023
3.3 Therefore, in view of the above stated stand taken by the respondent Department before the Hon‟ble Apex Court, now it is not open for the same authorities, to take contradictory stand and allege against the applicant that his failure to follow the Manual of Office Procedure is a „mis -conduct‟.
3.4 Since the conduct as an „Assessing Officer‟, is being discharged in the capacity of „quasi judicial‟ authority which can never be termed or equated as a „misconduct‟ under the circumstances, all subsequent order passed by the authorities in pursuance of the impugned charge memo fall flat on the application of a legal maxim, "sublato fundamento cadit opus, as held by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-MD, Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2958/2011 decided on 06.04.2011 and [reported Ahmedabad Bench in 2011 (5) SCC 142].
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the so called lapses set out in the article of charges and in the statement of imputation attached to the impugned charge memorandum cannot be attributed to the applicant herein who is an Income Tax Officer discharging his quasi judicial functions. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by CAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Naresh Kumar Goel Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Merut at Rishikesh (Uttarakhand) Vs. UOI & Ors. dated 01.08.2022 Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 in OA No. 331/00983/2021 wherein, a Division Bench has recorded its findings in paras 11 and 12 which reads as under :-
"11. The charge against the applicant is that he has acted in a reckless manner which resulted in undue benefits to the assessee at the appropriate time. However, some of the assessment orders may have been quashed by the ITAT subsequently but the article of charges does not substantiate that they were quashed on account of mala fide or gross irregularities. Moreover, it has not been disputed that the act of the applicant, which is being put to question, was a consequence of discharge of his quasi-judicial responsibilities. If the applicant has allegedly given undue benefit to someone and is guilty of judicial misconduct, the same has to be established by the superior appellate authority. Only if there is any blatant violation of law and procedure, ::10 ::O.A.No.221/2023
could such misconduct be subject to administrative action. A mere allegation of recklessness or ad-hocism in discharge of judicial function cannot be allowed to be subject to administrative review warranting disciplinary proceedings, as an administrative review of judicial decision would strike at the foundation of the principles of justice.
12. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned charge review dated 02.12.2020 is quashed."
3.6 It is submitted that the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 12.12.2022 suffers from the vice of delay and there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the respondents herein and the delay is causing serious prejudice to him inasmuch as his further promotion /chances of deputation, in near future, are being marred. In the present case, it can be seen that the impugned charge memo was issued on 12.12.2022 for the assessments carried out by him being a quasi judicial authority for the period 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, Ahmedabad Bench therefore, he is being prejudiced seriously for such delayed initiation. It is stated that for unexplained and inordinate delay, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside in view of the law laid down by Hon‟ble the Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, passed in Appeal (Civil) No. 4901/2005 decided on 08.08.2005 and other judgments including the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Bhupendra Pal Singh Vs. UOI decided on 22.12.2021 and the said judgment of JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, Bombay High Court was upheld by Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (C) SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 No. 11671/2022 filed by UOI. As also the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10590/2024 of Amresh Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. and submits that the respondents without mentioning any reason for inordinate delay, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were started. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law.
3.7 It is stated that the impugned disciplinary proceedings have been initiated with a malicious exercise of powers inasmuch as the departmental inquiry have been initiated under the pressure and ::11 ::O.A.No.221/2023
influence of respondent No. 6. Though, the applicant herein, impleaded the said Sh. Satbir Singh, as a party respondent in the present O.A. and notice issued by this Tribunal, was duly served upon him, but he did not bother to file his reply to counter the plea taken by the applicant nor the official respondents contravened the said submissions made by applicant. Therefore, learned counsel has reiterated that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated with malicious intention and under pressure of respondent No. 6 just with a view to ruin his career.
3.8 Learned counsel for applicant would also argue that as a matter of fact, assessments done by an officer at the relevant point of time, were in the capacity of a quasi judicial authority, and were duly subjected not only before the departmental internal audit but also by Ahmedabad Bench the CAG. As no discrepancy or illegality or infirmity could be observed or pointed out by the Audit Team(s), thus the impugned charge memorandum is bad in law and is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. Per contra, on receipt of notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. By referring the averments made therein, learned counsel for respondents mainly submitted as under :-Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= It is submitted that applicant‟s allegations of so called revengeful EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document 4.1 Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 action by the then Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Shri Satbir Singh, are without any corroborative supporting evidence. The applicant pleaded that the ITGOA & ITEF (Employees‟ Association), Vapi, though submitted their resolutions against the said private respondent but no action was taken by the competent authority, which clearly shows that the matter was not found actionable and even after such allegations, the issue was not referred to the higher authorities, therefore, the allegations made by him are not tenable and cannot avoid disciplinary proceedings against him.
::12 ::O.A.No.221/2023
4.2 It is stated that the impugned charge memo dated 12.12.2022 was issued after considering the report of the Vigilance, therefore, there is no delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him.
4.3 It is stated that the applicant herein was granted an opportunity to offer his representation at the time of vigilance inspection and thereafter, as per the advice of the vigilance, the impugned charge memo was served upon him. Thereby the principles of natural justice have been followed in the present case.
4.4 It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the charge memo are not the final verdict for imposition of penalty against him. The charges levelled against him for the alleged misconduct are related to his conduct during his tenure as Income Tax Officer, Ward Nos. 3 and 7 at Vapi. The applicant was given an opportunity to demonstrate his Ahmedabad Bench innocence during the departmental inquiry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
5. The applicant has filed his rejoinder and denied the averments of the respondents stated in their counter reply. However, the applicant has reiterated the averments made in the O.A. additionally, it has been submitted that respondents did not consider the grounds raised by him in his representation before the disciplinary authority. The Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, respondents failed to counter the submission of applicant that he had JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document discharged his duties i.e. as Assessing Officer in a capacity of quasi Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 judicial authority at the relevant time nor, any comments have been offered in this regard. It is submitted that the respondents are well aware that if any error / mistake is found in the assessment of an Assessing Officer, the Income Tax Act, 1961, does provide for remedial action in the form of revision under Sec.263 and reopening of the case under Sec.147 and thereafter, rectification under Section 154 under the Act. No such appeal or revision or any other kind of action in this regard has ever been taken by the higher appellate / reviewing authority in respect of the alleged assessment years. By relying upon the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in ::13 ::O.A.No.221/2023
W.P. (C) No. 5113/2014 UOI Vs. S. Rajguru decided on 13.08.2014 learned counsel for the applicant would argue that while upholding the order passed by CAT Principal Bench the Hon‟ble High Court had held that a mere error of fact or a law cannot be basis of commencing departmental proceedings against a quasi judicial authority such as CIT (Appeal) in the said case. The alleged charges made against the officer is only the basis of a decision which, according to the revenue, was erroneous. Such foundation for initiation of departmental proceedings against the officer of income tax who performed his duties as quasi judicial authority does not stand in the eye of law. Therefore, the said dicta laid down in the case of Rajguru (supra) also squarely applicable in the case of the applicant herein and thus the impugned charge memorandum and subsequent Ahmedabad orders, are bad in law.
Bench 5.1 Further, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon‟ble the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation [reported in (2009) 314 ITR 81/181 Taxman 111 (SC)] wherein, it was held that an order of assessment passed by an Assessing Officer should not be interfered with only because another view is possible.
Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the said ratio, it requires no imagination that allegations levelled against the applicant in the JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, memo of charges, do not constitute any misconduct. Though, the SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 applicant through representation had drawn attention of the respondents about aforesaid ruling of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, but failed to consider the same.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding further in the departmental inquiry in pursuance of Annex. A/1, was passed on 31.07.2023 which is continuing till date.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. After the arguments were concluded, learned counsel for the parties have ::14 ::O.A.No.221/2023
submitted their written notes/submissions and copies of relied upon judgments.
8. 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 the 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 Ahmedabad Bench Apex Court in B.C. 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 JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, of disciplinary and departmental inquiries. The Court reiterated that SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Courts and Tribunals, while exercising powers of judicial review, must confine themselves to examining the decision-making process and not venture into an appraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence on record. It was further emphasized 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.
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid dicta laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as the facts and submissions of the counsel for the ::15 ::O.A.No.221/2023
parites in the case in hand, the question whether the impugned charge memo dated 12.12.2022 suffers from the legal infirmities as well the subsequent orders passed by the disciplinary authority.
10. It emerges from record that the impugned charge memo dated 12.12.2022 issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was served upon the applicant, wherein it has been alleged that while he was working as Income Tax Officer, Ward Nos. 3 and 7, Vapi, during 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, he failed to maintain assessment records properly as per the laid down and prescribed procedue in terms of the criteria as per as stipulated in Paras 3.4.5 (Chapter-2) of Manual of Office Procedure (Vol.-II) and allowed undue claims of the assessees without bringing proper evidence on record. Further, it has been alleged that the applicant completed the assessments without due Ahmedabad Bench deligence by not making proper inquiries into the various claims of the assessees and taking the issue to their logical conclusion and thereby failed to detect and bring the correct taxable income towards tax.
10.1 The applicant denied the said charges in his representation before the Disciplinary Authority wherein, along with the detailed explanations he has also raised the grievance that during the alleged period i.e. 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, he had been performing his duties as „Assessing officer„ in the capactiy of a quasi judicial authority. As Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 per the Section 2(7-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an Income Tax Officer, an ACIT, DCIT and JCIT is "Assessing Officer" and where such an Assessing Officer is involved in the Assessment(s) of the Income Tax Returns filed by the assessees, his role is that of a „quasi judicial officer„ as held by CAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Naresh Kumar Goel, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. UOI & Ors..
10.2 Further, it was also the case of the applicant that such assessing officers are protected by the Judges Protection Act, 1985. Not only that under Section 193 of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officers ::16 ::O.A.No.221/2023
are protected from any legal proceedings in respect of their decision taken in good faith. Since the applicant herein discharged his duties being an assessing officer under quasi judicial powers, any decision in the assessments cannot be termed as a misconduct. However, the disciplinary authority failed to consider the such important position of law and have issued impugned charge memorandum.
10.3 Therefore, learned counsel by relying upon the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court and Hon‟ble High Court as well as this Tribunal, submits that the alleged charges does not constitute a misconduct as he has discharged his duties in good faith and there is no adverse remarks or objections raised in any Audit of the Department or by the CAG in its annual report.
10.4 As against the aforesaid submissions, the respondents in their reply Ahmedabad Bench though stated the details of the assessments carried out by the applicant herein while working as Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but could not able to explain whether the duties discharged by the delinquent officer as an Assessing Officer, were of a quasi judicial nature or not.
11. The core submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has discharged his duties in a capacity of quasi judicial Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, authority and the decision taken by him as assessing officer should JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document not be treated as mis conduct under the provisions of the Income Tax Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Act as well various judgments relied upon in this regard, therefore, the issue whether the act complained off against the delinquent- applicant herein, constitutes "misconduct" or are protected quasi- judicial functions?
11.1 In this regard, it is required to mention that undisputedly the charges levelled against the applicant in the impugned charge memo are related his duties discharged as Income Tax Officer-Assessing Officer.
::17 ::
O.A.No.221/202311.2.It is profitable to refer the order/judgment passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, 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 Ahmedabad proceedings against him. By agreeing with the said submission of Bench 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). His action or error in law or mistake in law cannot be attracted to proceed against him treating the same as his misconduct.
11.3 The aforesaid order passed by CAT, Principal Bench in the matter of JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, S. Rajguru (supra), has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 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:-
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 framed the following questions for its consideration:-
::18 ::O.A.No.221/2023
"14. The controversies for our consideration and determination are:
(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 issue of Charge Memo is legally sustainable?
(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 mala fide 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 Ahmedabad Bench 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 Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA procedural infirmities because the initiation of disciplinary proceedings DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA and the issue of charge memo against the respondent had been done at OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 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 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 this respect also the prescribed procedure was not adopted. A secret note is required to be properly inquired into, after which the ::19 ::O.A.No.221/2023
Government servant is to be given an opportunity to defend himself 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 the secret note before it was placed in his ACR.
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 Ahmedabad a manner which reflected on his integrity or that the respondent had Bench 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 JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 case of Nagarkar (supra) held that if the court were to initiate RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial order they should have been Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 strong ground to suspect officer's bona fides and the order itself should have been actuated by malice, bias or illegality.
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 whether the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Nagarkar (supra) was at variance with the law stated by the Supreme Court in K.K. ::20 ::
O.A.No.221/2023Dhawan (supra) is not relevant because even if the tests as laid 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:-
"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;
Ahmedabad Bench (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."
Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA
19. In K.K. Dhawan (supra), the Article of Charge framed against the E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 employee mentioned that he had completed certain assessments "(i) in an irregular manner, (ii) in undue haste, and (iii) apparently, 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).
::21 ::
O.A.No.221/202321. The first Article of Charge relates to the decision rendered by the respondent in the case of M/s Bhagirath Engineering Ltd. In that case, the Assessing Officer had framed an assessment order whereby 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 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 of notings 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 Ahmedabad reckless or that he had acted in a malafide manner or for any extraneous Bench 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 JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= 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 EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 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 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 assessee's wife. The respondent accepted the said contention and deleted the additions in ::22 ::
O.A.No.221/2023income made by the AO. Some of these deletions made by the respondent were reversed in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been alleged that the 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 in fact, by accepting the statement canvassed by the assessee, that the 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 Ahmedabad against a quasi-judicial authority. Bench
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 JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= 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 EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 indicate that the respondent had acted recklessly, malafidely or with ulterior motives. There is no allegation that the 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 with a view to confer to undue favour upon the assessee's concern". The test laid down by the Supreme Court in that ::23 ::
O.A.No.221/2023case must be read in the context of the facts placed before the Court. Although, the Court had held that where an officer had acted in a manner which would 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 the context of his conduct and not the correctness of the decisions 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 Ahmedabad erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by a quasi-judicial authority or a Bench 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 JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 course, if the judicial officer conducted in a manner as would RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or there is a Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 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 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).
::24 ::
O.A.No.221/202330. It is also necessary to bear in mind that a CIT (Appeals), essentially has to decide the cases based on the contentions canvassed before him. Proceedings before a CIT (Appeals) are adversarial proceedings and are bound to be decided in favour of 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 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."
11.4 It is important to mention that the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court was challenged by the respondent Ahmedabad Bench 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.
12. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the allegations levelled are relating to way back of 2014-2015 & 2016-2017, while he was discharging his duties as Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JITENDRA Act, 1961. The gravamen of the statement of imputation and the OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 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. Mere 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 Assessing Officer, it gives sole discretion to such officer, who is ::25 ::O.A.No.221/2023
vested this power under the statute to decide the assessment. Thus, it establishes that the applicant was discharging his duties at the relevant time in a capacity of quasi judicial authority. Suffice to reiterate that any decision or order passed by a Assessing Officer is subject to appeal and any injured person may sue.
12.1 Therefore, we observe that applicant was functioning as an Assessing Officer exercising his statutory powers under the Income Tax Act and such duties have been performed being a quasi judicial authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that erroneous exercise of quasi-judicial power does not constitute mis-conduct unless accompanied by mala fide, 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 Ahmedabad Bench 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 JITENDRA Digitally signed by JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, acts are legally unsustainable.
SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12.2. At this stage, it is apt to mention that since this Tribunal is convinced that the applicant herein, while working as Assessing Officer during the years‟ 2014-2017 he was discharging his duties as a quasi judicial authority and in absence of any mala fide conduct on the part of the officer at the relevant time such duties or decision taken by him as an assessing officer, cannot be termed as a misconduct. Since the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the applicant solely based on his „assessment‟ while working as Assessing Officer in the capacity of quasi judicial authority that too there being without any allegation of bribery or mala fide, the said foundation for ::26 ::O.A.No.221/2023
initiation of 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 laid down in 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".
13 In the result, the present O.A. is allowed and consequently, the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 12.12.2022 (Annex. A/1), is quashed and set aside. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. The interim order issued by this Tribunal is made absolute.
Ahmedabad Bench
14. 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, JITENDRA OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= 1fe52cf9149e9d502fa05caeba2060aeaa403ee0d4591882f3 72efdb7b9922bd, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, jrm SERIALNUMBER= EE3A7297A033A60BA9D18167E0260A2A1B2AB7E0C85B7 RAJ MEHTA E6E19FD988D3007062B, CN=JITENDRA RAJ MEHTA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.25 13:47:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0