Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S K Srivastava vs M/O Finance on 9 August, 2016
1 OA No.4096/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.4096/2014
Reserved On:25.07.2016
Pronounced on:09/08/2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)
S. K. Srivastava, IRS,
Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. Late B. S. Bhaskar,
CRD C-II/9, Pandara Park,
New Delhi-110 003. ....Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Cabinet Secretary,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004.
2. Ms. Anita Kapoor, IRS,
B 9/12, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110 057.
3. The Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkata Bhawan,
GPO Complex, INA,
Delhi-110 023.
4. The Secretary,
Deptt. of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
5. The Secretary, DOP&T
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
6. The Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Through its Chairman,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2 OA No.4096/2014
7. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan,
UP Secretariat,
Lucknow-226 001.
8. The Addl. Secretary & CVO,
Deptt. of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
9. The DCIT, Circle 40 (1), Delhi
(Assessing Officer of Ms. Anita Kapoor
& her spouse in tax-evasion case)
B Block, 3rd Floor, Dr. S. P. M. Civic Centre,
Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 002.
10. Under Secretary, Ad.I,
Deptt. of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001. .....Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Rajesh Katyal for Respondents No.1, 4,
5, 6, 8 to 10
Shri Nikhil Borwankar for Respondent No.2)
ORDER
Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J) The challenge in this Original Application (OA), filed by applicant Shri S.K. Srivastava, IRS, Commissioner of Income Tax, is to the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure S-1), whereby President of India was pleased to appoint Ms. Anita Kapoor (Respondent No.2), Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as Chairperson of CBDT in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and order dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure S-2) assigning substantive charge of the post of Chairperson to her.
3 OA No.4096/2014
2. The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant OA, exposited from the record, and as claimed by the applicant, is that, he detected and reported, tax-evasion, money- laundering, corruption and receipt of bribe & illegal gratification through sham transactions between M/s NDTV Ltd. and M/s GE Corporation of USA to the relevant authorities. So he was subjected to organized assault on his life & liberty, was implicated in false civil and criminal cases and he was deprived of fundamental rights by the respondents, fearing that, as a Commissioner, he may proceed with the enquiry, which may prove receipt of bribe and illegal gratification by Sri P. Chidambaram (the then Finance Minister) and corrupt IRS officers like Ms. Deepa Krishan, Sri. R.K. Tiwari etc. He was not allowed pay and allowances since May, 2014 despite repeated reminders/requests.
3. According to the applicant, that one such mischief by Sri P. Chidambaram and Ms NDTV Ltd. was, setting up Ms. Sumana Sen and Ms. Ashmia Neb against him. They had been regularly receiving bribe and illegal gratification from Ms. NDTV Ltd. & other tax evaders. They had been in cavalier situations in personal lives, to fake sexual harassment against applicant, and taking advantage of that, Sri. P. Chidambaram abused office and authority of Finance Minister, to place applicant under suspension and save him 4 OA No.4096/2014 and M/s NDTV Ltd. and corrupt IRS officers from getting caught in the illegal acts.
4. Thereafter, applicant was subjected to an enquiry over false allegations of sexual harassment levelled by Ms. Sumana Sen and Ms. Ashima Neb. The Sexual Harassment Committee concluded that the case of the applicant does not fall within the purview of "misconduct" amounting to sexual harassment of working woman at workplace under Rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the complaints were accordingly disposed of.
5. The applicant was stated to have been falsely implicated in civil, criminal and departmental cases at the behest of Sri P. Chidambaram and other official respondents. Even Shri Rajesh Katyal and Shri Mahipal, Advocates were not legally authorized to appear on behalf of respondents in various courts and departmental cases.
6. The case of the applicant further proceeds that, the President of India, has illegally appointed respondent No.2 as Chairperson of CBDT, vide impugned order (Annexure S-1) and assigned her the duty of Chairperson, vide impugned order (Annexure S-2).
7. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the applicant claimed that respondent No.2 was illegally and unlawfully appointed as Chairperson to harm and harass the applicant. He has challenged the impugned orders (Annexure S-1) and 5 OA No.4096/2014 (Annexure S-2), invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") on the following grounds:-
"A. BECAUSE, Respondents cannot act contrary to the Constitution of India and Rule of law and are bound to act in accordance with the Orders that are passed by the Court including this Hon'ble Court.
B. BECAUSE, the law is above everyone else and must remain so.
C. BECAUSE, applicant is aggrieved person for the reasons stated in para 1 of the instant O.A and relies upon the same as grounds in support of his prayers made and relief sought in the instant O.A. D. BECAUSE, applicant is aggrieved person for the reasons stated in para 4 of the instant O.A and relies upon the same as grounds in support of his prayers made and relief sought in the instant O.A. E. BECAUSE, the present O.A is filed for setting aside and quashing of illegal and unlawful" appointment of Ms. Anita Kapoor as the Chairperson, CBDT made contrary to statutory Rules "the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Chairman and Members) Recruitment Rules, 2006"and law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the "Centre for PIL & Anr. Vs. UOI & Anr." (2011) 4 SCC 1, Orders/directions of Hon'ble Prime Minister vide No. 3-3/2006-CS(A), dt. 08.06.2006, DOPT O.M No.-11012/11/2007- Estt. (A), dt. 14.12.2007 & Law held by this Hon'ble Court in "K. P. Singh Vs. UOI & Ors., O.A No. 878 OF 2007, judgment dt. 03.07.2007" in so much as Ms. Anita Kapoor does not have "impeccable integrity", as Ld. CMJ, Noida, U.P. vide Orders dt. 09.08.2011 ordered registration of criminal case against Ms. Anita Kapoor and others for offences committed by her and accomplices under the IPC, 1860, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the PML Act, 2002, the I.T. Act, 1961,m etc., which is operating as on date & is not under stay by any Court in any manner whatsoever.
F. BECAUSE, the procedure laid down by directions of Prime Minister vide No. 3-3/2006-CS(A), dt.08.06.2006 by which integrity of Ms. Anita Kapoor is to be determined has not been followed by Govt.
G. BECAUSE, the Committee of Secretaries the Cabinet Secretary, the Hon'ble Finance Minister, the ACC and Hon'ble Prime Minister has been misled and misinformed about integrity of Ms. Anita Kapoor.
H. BECAUSE, the post of Chairman, CBDT is not in-cadre post of IRS nor appointment as Chairman, CBDT is promotion in the hierarchy of IRS and Ms. Anita Kapoor will not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever if she is not appointed or removed as the Chairman, CBDT or her appointment as Chairman, CBDT is quashed by this Hon'ble Court as she will be posted within the CBDT in the same pay-scale of Rs.80,000/- per month as the Pr.CCIT in I.T. Deptt.
I. BECAUSE, applicant being a witness against Ms. Anita Kapoor will be irreparably prejudiced and his Fundamental Rights irremovably infringed be if he is forced to work under Ms. Anita Kapoor and she is allowed to deal with cases /matters pertaining to applicant either directly or through her subordinates as is being done by her now.
J. Because, the impugned Orders are illegal/unlawful because-6 OA No.4096/2014
1. As applicant is the complainant and the witness of the State before Ld. CMJ, NOIDA in criminal case against Ms. Anita Kapoor which is validity operating against her and is not under stay by any Court.
2. As the applicant is witness of Revenue in tax-evasion in excess of Rs.75/- Crores and concealment of income in excess of Rs.1,00/- Crores by Ms. Anita Kapoor and her spouse and their accomplices.
3. As impugned Orders are issued in violation of judgment dt. 14.11.2011 of this Hon'ble Court in O.A No. 2238 of 2011, "S. K. Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors." which has been accepted by Union of India and has attained finality and whereunder Ms. Anita Kapoor is prevented from dealing with any matter pertaining to applicant.
4. As Fundamental Rights of applicant under Articles 14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution are being seriously infringed as applicant is being forced to work under Ms. Anita Kapoor despite the fact that he is the prosecution witness against Ms. Anita Kapoor and her accomplices before the Court of Ld. CMJ, NOIDA, U.P., when Ms. Anita Kapoor has no inherent, manifest or vested right to be appointed as Chairman, CBDT as that is not an in-cadre post and she can easily be posted in the I.T. Deptt. itself in the same pay-scale of Rs.80,000/- and upon which she has an inherent right.
5. The applicant cannot work outside I.T. Deptt. as he will not get Vigilance Clearance/Cadre Clearance from Respondents because of mischievous disciplinary cases set up by Shri. P. Chidambaram/complicit IRS officers against him to divert attention from fraud and fraudulent acts defrauding the Public Exchequer in excess of Rs.10,000/- Crores in lieu of "bribe & illegal gratification" received as was done by Shri. P. Chidambaram, Finance Minister when he issued the mischievous/misleading "press release" dt. 08.04.2014 against the applicant at Madurai to mislead the electorate of the 31 PC Sivaganga, Tamilnadu during the General Elections, 2014.
6. As the post of Chairman, CBDT is not-in-cadre post for the IRS and appointment to the post of Chairman, CBDT has been held not to be promotion, Ms. Anita Kapoor cannot get prejudiced by not getting appointed as Chairman, CBDT all the more when within cadre she can be posted in pay-scale of Rs.80,000/- as Pr. CCIT and will suffer in no manner when applicant will be forced to work under Ms. Anita Kapoor against whom he is prosecution witness.
7. As Respondents have falsified official records/played fraud upon Courts to escape accountability for misconduct, applicant cannot be forced to work under Ms. Anita Kapoor, especially in view of-
a) 3 attempts to dismiss the applicant under Article 311 (2) of Constitution r.w. Rule 19 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 scandalously holding that Union of India was incapable of holding inquiries in misconduct imputed against applicant,
b) 2 attempts to fraudulently dismiss the applicant under Rule 56 J of the FR&SR when applicant had not completed the 50 years of age and his ACRs were generally rated Outstanding.
c) Attempts to get the applicant declared mentally insane/mad by paying bribe & illegal gratification to the doctors of the Vimhans, Delhi, a privately owned and controlled hospital, 7 OA No.4096/2014
d) Placing applicant repeatedly under suspension on concocted charges of "sexual harassment, sexual assault, molestation & repeated rapes" of Ms. Sumana Sen (IRS 99005)/Ms. Ashima Neb (IRS 99010) who were hired by M/s NDTV Ltd. and Sri P. Chidambaram to fake "sexual harassment, sexual assault, molestation & repeated rapes" and were paid for doing that,
e) 6 disciplinary cases illegally set up by Sri P. Chidambaram, Union Finance Minister and complicit/corrupt IRS officers,
f) 2 FIRs U/s 509 of IPC, 1860 in 2 different P.S. of Delhi when Sri P. Chidambaram was Home Minister for alleged enraging of modesty of Ms. Sumana Sen (IRS 99005)/Ms. Ashima Neb (IRS 99010) by reporting to Govt. about receipt of bribe & illegal gratification by them in lieu of fraudulently defrauding of Public Exchequer by M/s NDTV Ltd., etc., embezzling Govt. money of Rs.1,46,82,836/- through illegal Orders,
g) 26 transfers/postings in 27 years of service with Govt. and transfer/postings to 16 stations all over India in 26 years,
h) Attempt to murder the applicant by poisoning him in train.
8. As, Ms. Anita Kapoor because of the extraneous consideration and with oblique motives is party to malafide/malicious persecution of the applicant and by appointing her to an ex-cadre post contrary to statutory rules and in violation of Court Orders, Respondents have acted with acute and gross malafide to harm and harass applicant. K. Because, in pending inquiries U/s 14 of "the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 r.w. Rule 10 of "the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013" in the faking of the "Sexual harassment, sexual assault, molestation & repeated rapes" by Ms. Sumana Sen (IRS 99005) and Ms. Ashima Neb (IRS 99010), Ms. Anita Kapoor is also one of beneficiaries and participant and in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Arjun Chaubey Vs. Union of India & Ors." 1984 AIR 1356 & "Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School"1993 AIR 2155 cannot deal with the cases/matters pertaining to applicant.
L. Because, the doctrine of necessity in favour of the applicant and against Ms. Anita Kapoor and must necessarily be invoked so. M. Because, Ms. Anita Kapoor for extraneous consideration/oblique motives has sought to injure applicant through fabrication of false/mischievous records and abuse/misuse of office/official position-
1. In 2008, as JS, FTD, CBDT without having any locus or authority Ms. Anita Kapoor thorough false/fabricated records sought get applicant dismissed from Govt. service alleging that because of applicant I.T. Deptt. was getting bad name when neither was she concerned with such matters nor was bothered by IRS officers getting arrested while taking bribe and which was summarily rejected by the chairman, CBDT,
2. In 2009, Ms. Anita Kapoor fraudulently allowed her office to be claimed as residence of Ms. Ashima Neb (IRS 99010) and accomplice in criminal activities to file FIR against applicant, 8 OA No.4096/2014
3. In 2009 Ms. Anita Kapoor conspired to fabricate the E-mail ID of applicant and send E mails to Ms. Ashima Neb/Ms. Sumana Sen to get false cases registered against applicant.
N. Because, in terms of the directions/Orders of this Hon'ble Court and pending litigation/inquiries/investigation against Ms. Anita Kapoor where applicant is the complainant and witness, Ms. Anita Kapoor is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Chairman, CBDT as she does not have the "impeccable integrity" and because of that is liable to be removed from the consideration in the first stage itself as directed by the Prime Minister and her appointment as Chairman, CBDT has been obtained by concealing the material fact from the Committee of Secretaries/the ACC/the Govt. that Ms. Anita Kapoor does not have "impeccable integrity".
O. Because, normally applicant cannot question appointment of Ms. Anita Kapoor as he is not a candidate but as he is witness against Ms. Anita Kapoor having untrammelled control over him and in view of the fact that in 2008 she attempted to get him dismissed from service and later fraudulently got FIR U/s 509 registered against him claiming her office as residence of Ms. Ashima Neb, he is aggrieved in service domain and as Ms. Anita Kapoor has no inherent or manifest right to be Chairman, CBDT & there are posts in pay-scale of Rs.80,000/- in IRS to which she can be posted when applicant cannot work outside I.T. Deptt., by appointing Ms. Anita Kapoor chairman, CBDT being his official superior, Respondents have prejudiced him in service domain and therefore, he has the locus to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
P. Because, Applicant, having exhausted all the remedies in law is having no other efficacious remedy available to him but to invoke jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and as matter is in the service domain, invokes the gracious jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Q. Because, applicant is "aggrieved person" and his grievances are within the domain of his service conditions as envisaged by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Nighat Parveen vs. Union of India And Ors.", (1996) 2 SLR 769 and by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dt. 14.11.2011 in O.A. No.2238 of 2011 in the case of applicant.
R. Because, applicant is the aggrieved person and his grievances are covered well by the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India", 1994 SCC (6) 98. S. Because, in terms of Orders dt. 14.11.2011 of this Hon'ble Court in O.A. No.2238 of 2011, Ms. Anita Kapoor cannot be appointed Chairman, CBDT as she is having raging disputes with applicant and the Chairman, CBDT is the controlling superior of applicant. T. Because, Respondents has acted with acute malafide and malice. U. Because, applicant has no other efficacious remedy available."
8. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant sought quashing of the impugned orders, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
9 OA No.4096/2014
9. The respondents refuted the claim of the applicant. Respondents No.1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 filed their separate reply, wherein it was pleaded that the alleged fanciful grievance of the applicant was not a service matter or service dispute and the OA was not maintainable, being abuse of process of law. He has filed around 100 cases all over India and has repeatedly faced severe strictures and cost was imposed on him. According to the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed interim orders dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure R-7) against the applicant in Writ Petition (C) No.1010/2014 directing the applicant to forthwith desist from filing civil or criminal cases or complaints before any court or authority without the explicit permission of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. That even the applicant filed Writ Petition (C) No.4326/2011 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein applicant was held guilty of making false façade of inquiries against senior Government officials and being specially warned to be careful in respect of his submission before the court by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.4326/2011 decided on 15.06.2011 (Annexure R-1).
11. According to the respondents, applicant has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Chairperson, CBDT, which is in an Apex Scale post of the Government of India, while the applicant is in Senior Administrative Grade, i.e., 10 OA No.4096/2014 three grades below. He is not in any way affected by her appointment. Moreover, applicant has not directly been posted under the Chairperson, CBDT nor she (respondent No.2) can alone cause prejudice or harm to him. It is the Placement Committee, which decides the transfer and posting of such officers. The departmental proceedings against such officers are processed through Placement Committee, while the process of selection, if any, against senior Group 'A' officer of the Government mandates multiple levels of processing and involves consultation with Department of Personnel & Training, Central Vigilance Commission and Union Public Service Commission. In any case, Chairperson, CBDT is not the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the applicant.
12. Likewise, the Chairperson, CBDT, respondent No.2, while adopting the same line of defence, as pleaded in the written statement of remaining respondents, has filed her separate written statement, wherein, inter alia, it was alleged that she is not the DA, as the DA of the applicant is the President of India. She alone cannot harass the applicant, as alleged by him. The filing of OA was stated to be misuse of process of law.
13. Virtually acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of impugned orders (Annexure S-1) and (Annexure S-2), the respondents have stoutly denied all 11 OA No.4096/2014 other allegations & grounds contained in the main OA and, prayed for its dismissal with exemplary cost.
14. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondents have raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the instant OA. In this regard, he has contended with some amount of vehemence that since Ms. Anita Kapoor, respondent No.2, has already retired from the post of Chairperson, CBDT on 30.11.2015, so instant OA challenging her appointment, becomes infructuous. On the contrary, the applicant has vehemently, urged that although respondent No.2 has retired and since she has harassed the applicant, so cause of action still survives.
15. Having heard the applicant in person, learned counsel for the respondents, having gone through the record with their valuable help, and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, we are of the firm view that, there is no merit and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
16. As is evident from the record, the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure S-1) whereby, the respondent No.2 was appointed as Chairperson of CBDT, in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance by the President of India and order dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure S-2), assigning her substantive charge of the post of Chairperson, CBDT. Applicant has not challenged any order passed by respondent No.2 against him 12 OA No.4096/2014 in the present OA. Moreover, he has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Chairperson, CBDT, which is in an Apex Scale post of the Government of India, whereas the applicant, is in the Senior Administrative Grade, i.e., three grades below.
17. Sequelly, the MA No.2224/2016 filed by the applicant for amendment of the prayer clause in the OA was dismissed, vide order dated 25.07.2016 by this Tribunal. Therefore, since the respondent No.2 has already retired from the post of CBDT on 30.112015, no cause of action survives and this petition deserves to be dismissed.
18. There is yet another aspect of the matter which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. As illogical, as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of some of the Government employees, to file such frivolous petitions, challenging the appointments of higher officers, levelling unsubstantiated allegations, to settle their personal scores, have been tremendously increasing day by day, causing great prejudice and harassment to them. This tendency needs to be curbed in the right earnest. The present O.A is the burning example of such like cases.
19. This is not the end of the matter. The respondent No.2 was appointed as Chairperson of CBDT on 03.11.2014 by the President of India. The applicant has not specifically mentioned any action taken against him by respondent No.2 in her capacity as Chairperson, CBDT. Moreover, all the 13 OA No.4096/2014 instances mentioned in grounds para-M (1) to (3) pertained to the period of 2008 and 2009, i.e., much prior to the appointment of respondent No.2.
20. The matter did not rest there. The respondents have specifically pleaded in their written statement that the applicant had filed around 100 cases all over India, has repeatedly faced severe strictures and cost was imposed on him. According to the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed interim orders dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure R-7) against the applicant in Writ Petition (C) No.1010/2014 directing the applicant to forthwith desist from filing civil or criminal cases or complaints before any court or authority without the explicit permission of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. Not only that even the applicant was stated to have filed Writ Petition (C) No.4326/2011 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein applicant was held guilty of making false façade of inquiries against senior Government officials and being specially warned to be careful in respect of his submission before the court by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.4326/2011 decided on 15.06.2011 (Annexure R-1). The same has not been specifically denied by the applicant.
22. Meaning thereby, the applicant is in the habit of filing fanciful and celebrated litigations, levelling unsubstantiated allegations against the Minister concerned, and other higher 14 OA No.4096/2014 officials, (respondents) in order to settle his personal scores, which is not legally permissible.
23. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, the instant OA is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- on the applicant to be paid to the C.A.T Bar Association.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh