Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sudhiranjan Senapati vs Income Tax Department on 7 January, 2025
OLS No. SOONUR RANE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.ANo. 260/00063 of 2022
Reserved an: OS .0L20ES Pronounced an OF. 01.20
CORAM
vi os HONE 5) a Sue oe RANTAN MISHRA, MEMBER (7)
M06 KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Shri sue hiranjan se au, ee as ged 3 pou S SY ye Zar,
retired as Addai: al Commissioner of Income Tay,
Range-46, Reom No. 205, Drum Shape Building, ITO,
New Delhl-1i0 002.
ARH Cant
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary
(Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Central Secretariat, New Delhi LLIN.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry af Finance, Department af Revenus, Narth
2
Block, New Delhi-1 19 Q01.
3. The Secretary, Central Vigiance Commissioner,
Satarkata Bhawan, GPO Compiles, INA. A Block, New
Delhi P10 O28
4. Shri Njayasankar, earlier CIY (YDS), Bhubancswar
cum Inquiry OMicer presently posted as
Commissioner af Income Tax {Exernption], Kochi,
Kerala through the BCCIT, Qdisha, Bhubaneswar,
¥¢
a
"
Smt. INpi Agrawal, . Addl. CIT & Presenting OMicer,
Bhubaneswar veo ough othe PCCTT, Qaisha,
Bhubaneswar.
oe
OLA No. SOME LUE
6 The Frincipal Chief Commissioner af Income Tax,
Qdisha, Aavakar Bhawan, Bhubaneswar.
Respondents
For the applicant oy Mr MBatnaik &
MrJyoti Ranjan Behera, Counsel
For the respondents > Mr B Swain, Counsel
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The case af the applicant, in mutshell, [s that whte he was working as ICIT,) Range-2, Bhubaneswar, ane Shri Alok Nath (TO, 2 me "f 2 (1), Bhubaneswar, as an Assessing OMNcer conducted a ARSS Stones Pyt Utd on Bago sipyey wfs. ISSA af the LT. Act, 1961) of M/s. T208.2022 at N-1/93, IRC Village, Nayapally Bhubaneswar on P28. 2002. A written report dated 31.07.2065 was submitted by the Bhubaneswar alleging Ulegallty In the matter of aforesaid poe aurvey, based an such report, criminal case vide RU No. SA/S005 was registered against the applicant before the learned Special Judes |, Bhubaneswar. The CB, alter Investigation /enquiry submitted {inal report on 28.02, 2007, based on which the Criminal case (RE No. ie 2005) was clased vide order dated 27.11.2007, However, an the recom mend ation of the CBRL departinental proceedings under Rule if af COS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against him vide Memeorandum dated Q1.043.2008) which was challenged by him ©.4 No 2eqonnenanre before the CAT, PB, New Delhi in OA No. 049 of 2009 and the Learned Tribunal quashed the charee sheet vide order dated 06.08.2010, with liberty to the Respondent-Department to proceed against bim, if Minister concerned approve the charge sought to be served upon the Applicant. The order of the CAT, PB, New Dethi dated 06.08.2010 in OA No. 942 of 2009 was carried in appeal by the Respondent-Department to Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No, 7763 of 2013 (arising out of SLB (C ) No, 26939 of 20) L} which was dismissed on 05.09.2013 with liberty to the Respondent we, ibe OG Riheg, we Department to take appropriate action in accordance with law. According to hin, | without duc application of mind and without approval in the manner provided under Rules and Law (he. fret Stage @pproval for initiation proceeding afresh, second stage approving the charge sheet and third stage after conxidering the reply appoiniment of 1Q and PO), issued the tharge sheet afresh under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 afresh vide Memorandum No, C-1401 1/54/2014-V&L dated 04.08.2015, taking the approval at one blush. i is stated that by making exhaustive representation dated 14.06.2019, he had prayed for dropping of the charge sheet/proceedings and, there having no response, he approached tis Tribunal in GA No. 423 of 2019 which was ES OS Sy SoNNWOROL disposed of on 12.08.2021 calling upon the authorities concerned to sousider and dispose of the said representation of Applicant dated 14.06.2019. Thereafler, the Reapondent-Department considered the representation but rejected the same vide order dated 28.16.2021, Meanwhile, Applicant was retired compulsorily from service under 3 FR 36 Gh. 2 is, in the above circumstances, he has Gled this OA * infer alla praying for the reliefS as uncer:
) Ta gash MM emorancian & Ne.
Pfaif -- ESS ated Od, GS of ig under dnrexure-A z spies es deed NA wok ae 7 a fall fe allow falx Q4 with costs:
Gy) Fo dire Me Respondents fo pay the Applicant all iis xervice and 1 Findneial henefits retrospective:
fy) To pass any other ordervorders as deemed JH and proper."
2. Respondents have filed their counter contesting and objecting ihe case af the Applicant, According to Respondents Crinvinal Case was registered, {hr the Incident in question, against the. Applicant by the CBI, BBSR but the applicant was let off by the Learned CRI Court in the ssid Criminal Case due to lack of evidence tp launch Criminal Prosecution seeinst him and, thas, the ac af the ThA No SSSA RRS Gaes applicant was not «@ clear cut acquittal, Therealier, the CBI recommended initiation of major penalty procesding against the Appheant. Hence, after obtaining advice from CVC, departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant with due application of mind and after following duc process of law wide Memo dated O14 2008 before the CAT. PB. New Delhi in QA No. 9423/2000 wherein the CAT, PB, New Dethi vide order dated 06.08.2010 while guashing the charge Memo dated 01.44.2008 granted Uherty to the Respondent-Department to issue charge Memorandum if concerned authorities would approve the same. 'The said order af the Tribunal wes also confirmed by the Hone Apex Court vide order dated US.08.2013. Thereafier, approval of Hon'ble Finance Minister (Disciplinary Authority) was sought fer issuance of fresh charge tent sheet, draft memorandum under Rule [4 of OCS (COA) Rules. 1968 < Pas f for institution of major penaliy proceedings afresh and appointment ect of TOA and. upon receipt of approval, charee sheet was issued to the Applicant, which is the subject matter of challe Mec in Uis OA.
'Ths Applicant on receipt of charge Meme submitted written defence musing objection and seeking decuments instead of admitting ar denying the allegation on merit. The said reply was examined by the 4 No Beare:
Chairperson, CBDTE and rejected the same vide letter dated TO3.2018. Hence, IORPO were appointed vide order dated competent authority to proceed with the enquiry. In so far as delay mM issuing charge sheet is concerned, it has been stated that ja the vase of State of Madhya Pradesh ve Bani Si neh and Another, AIR 1990 SC 1308, charge sheet was issued on adverse remarks § in ACK alter 12 years: in the case of P.VoMahadevan vs Md.
VN. Housing Board, IT 2005 (7) SC 417 charge sheet was issued EQ years of the incident and in the case of ALY. Bijani vs Union of India (2005) § SCC 88, charge sheet was issued after six years of meident whereas the facts and issued involved in the case in hand being distinct and different the afbresaid decisions relied on by the applicant have no application. As regards the stand of the 'icant that statutory provision w/s.293 of the LT. Aer provides that quasi fadicial action unless specifie revenue loss ar pecuniary advantage or mala fide ae gelion is precluded and since CBI did noe fad out any such evidence for the lapse alleged in the departmental proceeding for which criminal case fastiiuted was closed on 27.11.2007 initiation of departmental proceedings is bad in law. the Responents in their counter have ce OLS No BSG AIT sated that in terms of the Stafutory provisiin under section 263 of the LT. Act, for passing order in quasi fadicial capacity no prosecution, suit or other proceeding shall Ne against the Govt. or any officer of the Govt. for anything, in ¢ goad faith, done or Intended fo be done. But the Nen"ble Apex Court in the case of UOL & Ors vs K.A.Dhawan, 1993 ©) SCC 58 held that Hf quasi judicial authorily acts in reckless and negligent manner conferring undue benefit on others and his actions have been actuated by m ale fide + intention such authority is Heble to be procesded against. Thenstore, imation of disciplinary proceeding against the applicant cannot be fautted awhth. Yhe all egation of applicant that the Respondents exercise of power for initation of departmental proceedings in a pick and choose manner has been denied by the Respondems by tating that the apnlicant was the Supervisory officer and therefbre. disciplinary prace coding was fnifiated against him. Ie so fir as Criminal Case is concerned, & has been stated thar criminal case and disciplinary Procecdings sre two separate and parallel procesdin Ags and therefore, letting off from criminal case does not mean the authority concerned is precluded from procesding in departmental proceedings. In this regard. they have placed reliance an the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the ease af State of Rajasthan vs g Suri E.R. Meena & Others, AIR 1907 SC 15. Ip is seed that the applicant afl through questioned the maintainability and sustiinability of the charge sheet and he never questioned the merit of the mater. He did coaperate with the Inquiry proceeding wherein he could have defended the charge levelled avainst him and could heve got the charge unproved during the course of Inguiry proceedings. The enguiry was concluded ex parte wherein the charge was held proved. In stating the above, the Respondents have prayed that this OA being devoid of any merit is Usable to be dismissed.
S. The Applicant has also filed rejoinder treing to fustely how the stand taken by the Respondents are of na consequence for tung the relicf claimed in iis OA. The stand igken by Aim will be dealt into while dealing with the arguments herein below.
4. Learned Counsel appearme for the Applicant at the fest insiance drew our attention io Annexure-IT af Criminal charge sheet in RC No. 3AS2008 vis-a-vis Annexonslll accampanied with the arimental proceedings Moernorandam of chares dated OS 08.2014 to establish that not onl y the allegation in both the proceeding was out of ane ineident but alsa the documents and witness relied on in both the proceeding were same :
O) 4 Nir SEOMNAE RAS 9 has submitted that in criminal case the applicant having been scquitid, may be duc to lack ef evidence to fgunch criminal prosecution, the departmental preceedings has to close. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance an the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal ys State of Rajasthan & Others, (2024) 1 SCC 198. He has also placed reliance on the decision of CAT, PR, New Delhi ie the case of Shiri Yogendra Mittal, Deputy Commissioner af Incame Tax vs COL and others) in OA No. 1178 of 2024 disposed of on U3.072024, to state that In similar situation, afler discharge in at him by the CBI. continuance af enotinal case instituted agar disciplinary proceedings initiated on self same allegation was llenged by him in OA No. 1178 of 2024 and, the CAT, PB, New Delhi, by plicing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'hle Apes Court in the cases of GM Tank v Stute of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446, Ram Laly State of Rajasthan & Others, (2024) 1 SCC 175:
Commissioner af Police, New Delhi v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC &§ and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karneteka at Bengaluru in P.VJRudrappa v Slate of Karnataka & Another in Wit Petition No. 9642/2020 decided on 30.01.2024, quashed the departmental proceedings vide order dated Brigit ee emer eet ht 10 23.8 No Seanngaoaee therefore, according to learned Counsel fbr the Applicant, the present case being one and the same, the charge sheet is Hable to be quashed, 4a) Secondly, (cared counsel for the Applicant drew our allention to the imputation in the Memorandum dated 04.08.2014 to state that the mentions made in the imputation, have absolute Hy HO relevance ar even any nexus to the allegation mentioned in the Article of charge sheet. Thus, seceding to him, the a ERHOn mate im the charge sheet is established that the same are --
unapecitic because nothing has been atated as ta when the Sesesament was to he conducted but the applicant failed in his supervisory duty to camplete the same and the dey gree of culpabiligy:
what was his role as a supervisory officer since it was not his duty to make the assessment, Henee, it has been contended that in absence .
af details, he was highly prejudiced to stand and cMHeat based an as to how far the Applicant was responsible and intended ta establish the matter by shifing the onus on the applicant which is NS RSS Sat iMnermicdhle uy lew, To 4 justly and forufy that where charee sheet : :
is vague and unspecific fudicial interference is not precluded, learned counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on the a UA No SOOBUGGNINSS decisions of the Hon "ble Apex Court in the cases of Sawai Singh vs State OF Rajasthan, (986 AIR 895 & Anil Gulurker ve Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and anether, 2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 9S. Accardingly, he has prayed that on this scere also the charge sheet is Kable to be quashed 4ib). Thirdly, to fusuiy that issuance of charge sheet was under miluence of outside agency and thus, the charge sheet is not sustainable ad is linble tg Se quashed, leamed counsel for the agmlicant drew cur attention te the note sheet obtained under RTI Ast, 2008, wherein, the file was placed before the Disciplinary Authority for approval with nothing that "s. Phe CAY had conducted search on JE 2005 in respect of Sani dlok Nash and Shei CEO RORY ete Se ype oe ae ey nds RS Serene ee te = cf Eu $ os iw SA Sena? and mace fether lavesdiguiion in ty core. Per drvestigation, the CRY reconenemied Reeulur Departmental action for Major Penalty in bath ihe eases. The CBI also furwarded Dray Aniele of CRarees framed avainet the aficers along with stulement Qf unputation ay avsconedn ct in support af fhe aniiele af charges... Menece, secenting t& Learned Counsel for the applicant the initiation af disciplinary proceedings was not an independent application of mind or frees front influenced, person or body f act in its plac bem Pa CUA Ns BEG BRAES OG RR oy dic) Asoording to him, CBE is an antside © sgency of the Revenne Department of Government of India and, thus, he ought not to have prepared the draft charge and sent the same for approval. By placing reliance an the decision of the Non'his Apex Court in the case of Sahni Silk Mills (P) Lid. 11994) 5 SCC 346. itis. stated that by now His almast settled that the legislatare can permil any statutory authority to delegate its pawer to any other authority, of course, after ated in the statute uself whhin the the polloy has been indi framework of which such delegatee is to exercise the power. The real problem or the controversy arises when there is a sub-
egation. When Parliament hes ey appointed authority te Bos de discharge a function, it cannot be re cadily presumed that & had intended that its delegate should be free to empower another & In order to strengthen the fe above stand, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance an wervation ® above case is re produced herein below:
ing ea id ron a ferepiing © ihe . subptice sion af Me india doe : : st delegare {or al 33 UA No Sakina ano Administrative Action" De Smith, Woolf and Jewell (2)8h bdnion} as follows:
a ne eu e E Hgal at ee . Gs aren HOWE HTS, Ip beer committed. bh is a We Leon Fe prin ciple of law that when 8 power Ass been canfided io a feyson by ng placed in fus Ny circumstances indicating thet trust is be muisidual judament and discretion, he a ' analy uniesa he has been < expe vege PAVED perse io delegate W to anced i 'fhe sa described dn _Adinin :S orev ENinik FE paver An oles hich is essentis! to the Laoviul exercise of poorer js that 1p should be exercised by the authority apnn whom It is confirred, und by no one alse." A inciple is _ y applied, ever where it cases ASN Atrative VERIOHGe, Noe Is caaee where reasonably me infivred thar the power wes tended fg be dilesable. Normally the courts are " igorhen m requidisg the power te a :
FY CRIGS se as wut CON ON y delewsies be weer oxy authorized by the authority endowed with 74 a the OE ce Onier of 2008 is & AS dinate to dhe sppoivting RAY Seu d that rules of natural hustice gre dine te the fe ed Adal. Solicitor General, the ee ming th hat ae af sonal Justice cee dean Hostel @ tO the Addl. S Solieitor Geno), ths quashing the charges sheet as no » preiud ic : e eae cigdent. In our opinion, the submissian af the a dad Addl 5S General ia not factually onrreet, The orimary y submission of tie respandent wua that the charge sheal not heving he aed by the disciplinary authority is a auth ami, therefore, nan est in the eye of low. : s bern accepted by the CAT aa alec by been taken auginat the respondent fn Aah the CORCY A) Russ which enjoins the discinlinary 'ty drive up or cause io be drawn ap the substance ¢ tion of miisoomduet or qushehaviour iat definite anc articles af charg ges. The term "cause to be drawn ap™ doe not main that the definite and distinct articles of charges once ees the re cepandnt > ORR AS i his phe c the gh Ce sure, The getlon § o Re {2.5 Ne Sep ASg Ras.
drswn up do not heve to be approved by the discinlingry authority, The term "cause te be drawn up" merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary autherify fo a subandinate authority to perfurm the fash af drpving up substance of proposed "definite and distinct articles of charge sheet". These proposed articies af xpproval by the disciplis th ay Gen yah iS poun ; : Mol Imhe or a State Go makes any rule prescribing Ghee even the frocending delinquent officer shall } au by an officer not sahor ihe appointing suthorits urther held that "Any such nat be inconsistent with will amount to providing fhakdere ofa chal past"
4(d) Leared Counsel for applicant has placed rellance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mansukhial Vithaldas Chauhan ve State Of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 to state that ifthe suthority in whom the discretion is vested under the Statute, does nat set independently and Passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Cort wand dafervene in the matter, quash the orders and jesue x mandamus that authority to exercise its own and since in the case in hand, initiation of Disciplinary proceeding and issuance of charge sheet Sased on external dictation of CGT and CVC, there has been np independent of application of mind af the competent authority, 8 liable to he quashed.
1S | GLA Ne SOO 00 4{e) He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagraj Shiv Rao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, Head Office Manipal and Another, ATR 199] ©) SC 394 to substantiate that surrender of discretion vested on stgtate at the Wetation of CBI and CVC by instituting DP and charge sheet prepared and furnished by CBI is not sustainable. a(). ip is contended that the concerned authorities of the department have to exercise their own quasi-judicial diseretion alone, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. They cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission, or of the Central Government. No other party like the Central Viedance Comission. or the Central Goverment, cao dictate to the Disciplinary Authority, or the Appellate Authority, as te how they should exercise their power. Since in the present case, ihe entire gantul of exercise was started at the behest of CBI, the charge ahect is Hable to he quashed, ledihed eounse! for ihe applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apes Court in the case of Nirmala J. dhala ve State of Gajaret & Anr, m Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005, die) By drawing our attention te the note sheet, learned counse! fer the applicant has submitted that proposal was placed for approval of 16 G4 No.Renwaua as Deall Memorandum under Rule 14 of COS (CC&S8) Rules, 1968 for uisiluion of major penalty proceedings affesh against the Applicant and appointment af [O/PC if required in the course of de spartnicntal proceedings to be initiated against the Applicant which was approved' albeit as per Rules & Law laid down in the case of BV Gepingth (supra), when it was decided ta laitiate proceeding resh, the authority coneerned ought fo have taken decision for wllation of proceeding at the first instance, thereafter, approval of charge sheet and afler suluniesion of reply by applicant to the memorandum of charge decision ought to have been taken to proceed further in the matter, and. if se, appointment (0 and PO would have been taken. The said procedure hevine nat been followed, the charge sheet {s liable to be quashed.
5. On the other Sand, learned counsel for the Respondents has Omitted CUT aller considering the matter in fis entirety » for Inltigtion of major penalty proceeding against the applicant and based om the said suggestion first stage advice was sou VC, as provided under the Rules and after ¢ etting the approval of ¥ Dacae CVC on the sugeestion of CBI the CEA Nas Shavengeares the matter, Similarly, it has been contended that criminal case and disciplinary Proceedings are two separate and parallel proceedings and therefore, letting off fom criminal case does not mean the authorily concerned fs precluded from proceeding in departmental proceedings: especially when the apmicant was not bonourably aequitted, in this regard, he has pleced reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apes Court in the case of State OF Rajasthan vs Shri BUR. Meenas & Others, AIR 1897 SC 73 Henee, according to learned counsel for the Re spondenis there being no iegalliy in Proceeding geainst the applicant with the alle egaticn in the charge Sheet, this OA is lable to be quashed,
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and afler clasure af the arguments, learned counsel for the fespective parties have filed their written note a! subntissions and we have alse Sone through entire records and the decisions relied on by the parties, ents advanced by learned Counsel
4. We do appreciate the aroun for the Applicant that as per the Rules and Law laid down in the case al BV Gopinath ¢s supra}, there shell be three S88eS approval viz:
A first Instance the authority concerned has to decide that there are Materials to proceed ag over, aller which the anthony 18 UA No SRG GGRe soncemed has to approve the draft charge sheet whereupon an receipt af the reply of the delinquent, the DA has to decide ag ta whether he would flirther i the matter by appointing 10 and PO to enquire ete. But in the ineranr cass, we find thet although the fle was placed for approval of Dra Memorandum for insitation of me major penalty proceedings afresh, non following the frst sh upproval cannot be found faulted with because the CAT, PB, Now Delhi in earlier ue while quashine the Memorandum of charge sheet dated 01.04 2008 eranted berty to the Respondent Department to proceed againat the applicant if Minister concerned MAY approve the charges saueht io be famed and served upon the applicant. Thus, since the charge was approved, the principle decided in the case af BUY .Gepineth (supra) Bet exhausted, Hence, the subnrisgion of learned omresel for the Applicant to the above effect did net weigh much for quashing tbe depamental dings initiated against the Applicant.
8 Next we prooeed i examine the case aithe Applicant in the tent of the decision of the Hon'ble Apes Conrt in the case of Ram & Lal (supra) and the decision af CAT. . PB. New Delhi in the case of Shri Yorendra Mittal, Deputy Commissioner of Incume Tay ¥s UOE and others) in OA Noa (178 of 20234 disnosed is AGA No baonicounee oN 03.07.2024 (supra). The allegation made in the Criminal Case vide RC No. 3A/2008 se alse in the disciplinary proceeding is out of the same incident is not in dispute. It is alsa not in dispute that 09 documents and 12 witesses shown in the charge sheet (Arnexure-
U) in Criminal Case were the same in Annexure-Il! af the charge sheet, besides 1] more documents. The Criminal Case wag Tc cried the final + 'eport ss well as the case igating Officer has observed that (lable in this case are not sufficle:
6 si sek b prosecution. He has, therefore, pea accept the final report. The final repart is ac Soopted and the case is closed due to insullicioney of evidence. Return the seized properties fo the person entitled tu the possession thereof"
%. -The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court ia the case of G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Aur, (2006) 5 SCC 446 is quoted as under:
en prac oe aad be Salad: CHa gre based on identical and similar se of facts and the ch arge ina Departmental case againat the appellant and the charge before the Crnunal ¢ Court are one and the same. Hf is tras thet the nature af charge in the departmental proevedines and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the cass launched AGAINAL the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquy ane investigation and sa reflected in the ¢ sheet 20 C28 Ne BEG MONas G22 factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges. evidence, witnesses. and circumstances are one and the same. In the present ease, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, rad conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefiom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other denarty pera! witnesses were the only witnesses examine Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses Were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that. the prosecution has not proved the gull alleged agsinst the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his Ridicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has nat been proved. [t is also to be noticed the fudicial pronouncement was made afier a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.
10. The view taken in the aforesaid case has also been followed in the case of Ram Lal (supra) wherein it has been held as under:
"a? We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth af the finding of the appellate Judge, the discipli proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot allowed to stand. The charges were not Just similar ut identical and the evidence. witnesses circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them ic @ stand ot eee un] fust, ee and . c. The 24 DLA No Seniadagana il. Han accused is dischs read at pre trial s ee or the erinting! proceeding launched against him js quashed, ther is ac difficulty in treating the same as the case of 'honouruble acquittal' for the lindted Purpose Gf disciplinary Inquiry is the law of the land as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court n the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 68 and fol lowed by the Hon'ble Hieh Court of Ramemka and Bengaluru ta PV Rudmappra {supra}. Relevant portion of the deeision js quoted below: "the expressions "honourable acquittal', "sequitted of blame" and "filly exonerated" are unknown fo the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. 'They are coined by judicial pronouncements, Ht is diffleult to define what is meant by the expression "honourably ac. quitted™, . When ihe accused is acquitted after full consideration af the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably y Tals ta prove the charges leveled againat the accused, Ho can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
(c} The idea of 'honourable acquittal' is not easy to define although ft can be illustrated, [fan accused | is ion ged al pre-trial stage or ie criminal proceedir che inet him ie quashed, there is no dif (ficulty fa ' Salt the same as the cases { oF _ Noheurable se aes #0 senile Pepe of feetp hi Criminal Cc pure 1 onder: acquit al Ww ith any of hay - fullowing Mustrives:
G@) the accused . falsely prosecuted to seek VOASGMCE or for sorne ufienior mative.
(h) that there is bes RO ewklenee to implinate the accused in the proceed! IWS:22
CLA Na SEG RONEN (Hi) there is wery [tile evidence which is insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of erime:
(iy) the prosecution has miserably failed te prove the charges against the accused:
(vy) the prosecution witnesses are unw earthy of any credit and thelr version does Hot senerate ony So safc ence"
ts. We have examined the case of Shri Yogerdra Mittal, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), against whom Criminal Case was also registered by the CBI wherein he was discharged and. therefore, he a approached befbre the CAT, PB. New Delhi for quashing the departmental proc eedings Initiated against him out of same allegation, The CAT, PB, New Delhi by app! yg the decisions in the cases of GM. Tank (suprah Ram Lael (supra); Mehar Singh Gop} & PW -Rudrappa (supra) quashed the departmental proceedings with direction that the Applicant therein shall be entitled fo all co msequential benedits lowing from guashing ofthe proceedings, by abserving a8 eader:
"TS. Admittedly, the offences are tied m the crintingl court and afer the ial, the court C MAY convich ar aequit the ftom No.0 accused, Even at the pre-trial Silage, an accused may he discharged tao, as has heen done in the instant ease, whieh can be construed to be 'honourable acquittal'.
14. An 'nequit al ge the person has not committed the of was charged and tried: the cloud an his p a ued. mrocence, thus, sta ands romeved, Acguittel is recorded when Prosocaiion:
fails to prove Hs case beyond all reasonable doubt: that £28 No 2aGNNGEQ Geo is, when the guilt ig mot proved to the Ail: The benefit of doubt piven to the accused does not mean that he was Invelved in the case, but the same could not be established by the prosecution, ORIN See ae SRC
16. We are also ef the opinion that the Weary Basis to Initiate the discin{i proceeding initiated against the applicant by the CBI, and gmee the loter proceeding has culmingied into 'discharge', there would be no cogent reason fo contings with the disciplinar receading, Poe a ees iS. In the shave fRets and ciroumstances as well 88 discussions Rat brought out ebowe, on the face of the ander in the Criminal Case instituted against the applicant and law on the subject Quoted above we are of the considered opinion thu the impagned Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 04.08 7014 porsaant to which disciplinary proceedings have been set io motion against the Applicant deserves io be quashed and set aside and thus ordered acearding!y. Ia view of = the above, olbei# number of callateral issues had been raised by the learned counsel for the parlics, we deemed fp apprapriste got ip + oping on the same.
is. In the result, this OA stands allowed by jeaving the parties to < < (Pramod Ramar Das} (Sudhi Ranjan } ishra) Member (Adin) | Member (dij