Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S.S. Kamwal vs Union Of India Through on 28 May, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA 1031/2010 New Delhi, this the 28th day of May, 2010 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) S.S. Kamwal s/o Sh. Mint Ram R/o 137, Munirka Enclave, (Opposite DTC Depot, Vasant Vihar) New Delhi 110 067. Applicant (By Advocate : Ms. S.K. Gupta) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), 1, Dayal Singh Library Building, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. R.N. Singh with Ms. Sangeeta Rai) ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
S.S. Kamwal, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside charge sheet dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure A-1) on the only ground that the same has not been approved by the competent authority which, in the case of the applicant, is the Finance Minister, and instead has been approved by the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), third respondent arrayed in present Original Application.
2. It is not in dispute that the competent authority in the case of the applicant to issue charge sheet is the Finance Minister. It is also not in dispute that similar controversy came to be decided by this Tribunal in the matter of S.K. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 1434/2008 decided on 18.12.2008) holding that if the charge is not approved by the competent authority, the same is liable to be quashed, which was affirmed by High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 10452/2009 decided on 28.07.2009. Mr. R.N. Singh, counsel defending the respondents, would, however, relying on some judgments referred to in the counter reply in paragraph 5, contend that a contrary view has been taken on the said issue. Counsel does not appear to be right. Judgments relied upon by the counsel defending the respondents, we may mention, are Special Civil Application No. 2900 of 1967 in the matter of Jai Nath Wanchoo vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1970 Bombay 180; A.K. Banerjee vs. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India & Ors., AIR 1971 ITR Vol.79 page 707, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, AIR 1996 SC 765 and Ishwar Lal Girdhari Lal Joshi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 870, and the same are distinguishable.
3. We would have gone into this issue elaborately, but we find that these very judgments in addition to six more judgments involving similar controversy came to be considered by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in a number of connected petition, leading one being OA No. 2680/2008 in the matter of Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 24.02.2010. Judgments that came to be considered by a coordinate Bench for the proposition, as having been relied upon by Mr. Singh, counsel for the respondents are as follows:-
1. Ishwar Lal Girdhari Lal Joshi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 870
2. Jai Nath Wanchoo vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1970 Bombay 180;
A.K. Banerjee vs. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India & Ors., AIR 1971 ITR Vol.79 page 707, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, AIR 1996 SC 765.
Chandra Kumar Chakravarty vs. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (2) SLJ 209 Transport Commissioner, Madras v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, JT 1994 (7) SCC 744;
Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayanan, 2007 (1) SCT 452 Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Appala Swamy, 2007 (8) SCALE 1 MCD & Anr. Vs. R.V. Bansal, 130 (2006) DLT 235 (DB);
Subir Kumar Mitra vs. Govt. of India & Ors. (OA 767/2005- Ernakulam Bench decided on 01.09.2006 upheld by the High Court.) The said judgments were held to be distinguishable.
4. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra). That apart, as mentioned above, the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of S.K. Srivastava (supra) has since been recently upheld by the Division Bench of High Court.
5. In view of the position, as explained above, this Original Application is allowed to the extent that order approving the charge by the third respondent would stand quashed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to get the charge approved from the competent authority i.e. Minister of Finance. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (V.K. Bali)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/