Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajesh Ranjan Prasad vs Union Of India Through on 19 March, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 313/2009 with OA 1528/2009 New Delhi this the 19th day of March, 2010. Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) OA 313/2009 Rajesh Ranjan Prasad, IRS, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, S/o Shri Dina Nath Prasad, R/o G-159, Central Govt. Officers Quarter, Nanakpura, South Moti Bagh, New Delhi-110021. Applicant (By Advocate Shri P. P. Khurana, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Seema Pandey) VERSUS 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, through the Chairman, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Union Public Service Commission, (through its Secretary), Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Mr. R.N. Singh) OA 1528/2009 M.C. Pandit, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range XII, Aykar Bhawan, Ahmedabad. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri P. P. Khurana, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Seema Pandey) VERSUS 1. Union of India Notice to be served through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Notice to be served through the Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Reveue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. Respondents. (By Advocate Mr. R.N. Singh) O R D E R M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) :
Since the facts and issues in the both the Original Applications (OA 313/2009 and OA 1528/2009) are same, they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Applicant in OA 313/2009 is a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. He has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Memorandum issued to him, on 13.02.2002 and the penalty order dated 08.02.2008. There is further prayer for directing the respondents to open the sealed cover containing recommendations of DPC held in or about September, 2002 for promotion of officers to the grade of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Similarly, applicant in OA 1528/2009 is an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. He has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Memorandum issued to him, on 20.12.2002 and follow up actions taken, including the report of the Inquiry Officer as well as the disagreement Note that is on record. There is further prayer for directing the respondents to promote him to higher grades.
3. Mr. Khurana, Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, on instructions, had submitted that a detailed hearing in respect of the contentions raised in the OAs might not be essential as of now, in view of the law that has been laid down by this Tribunal, and the High Court, while dealing with identical contentions. In fact, directions issued in such of the cases whenever made had been upheld by the Delhi High Court. The issues relate to the requirement of the Government to strictly adhere to the Statutory Rules, and especially in the matters of procedure. We note that the principal contention raised in the applications is that the charge memos on which disciplinary action had been founded, had not been approved by the disciplinary authority and this was a basic defect which vitiated the proceedings ab inito.
4. Learned counsel had taken us to the averments, which suggests that before initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the charge sheets had not been approved by the Minister, the disciplinary authority.
5. Mr. R.N. Singh appearing for the respondents, however, submits that initiation of the proceedings had been approved by the Minister and, therefore, the contentions raised in the applications were really hyper technical. Mr. Singh also submits that the long delay in approaching the Tribunal, for challenging the validity of the charge sheets could not have been overlooked. Applications are hit by limitation as the cause of action for the applicants had arisen 8 years back. He also had made a faint attempt to contend that the view that had been taken by the Tribunal although approved by the High Court nevertheless should have been subjected to a second look.
6. We find that as late as on 24.02.2010 a batch of cases which agitated the self same contentions had been disposed of by us (OA 2680/2008 and connected cases) where we had indicated that we opted to follow the judgments, rendered in OA 1434/2008 and OA 800/2008. We had noted that both the cases had been carried to the High Court but by separate proceedings (WP (C) 13223/2009 and 10452/2009) the orders have been upheld. Mr. Singh also does not dispute the submission made, namely, that on the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General dated 29.09.2009, proposal to file appeal before the Supreme Court was not pursued. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deny the benefits of the decision, to the applicants here.
7. We also do not think that there is substance in the contention that the applications are belated and require to be rejected, by taking resort to Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is fundamental that the applications are required to be discouraged only if there are laches evident on the part of the applicant. In the present cases, after receiving the Memorandum of charges, the inquiry was proceeding and even as of now final orders are yet to be passed/implemented. The applicants, therefore, will be justified in contending that the cause of action was always continuing. In such a case, when it is noticed by an officer that the proceedings are vitiated by procedural irregularities, he has a right to take recourse as admissible under law.
8. We may also notice the facts of OA 234/2008 viz that a final order had been passed in the disciplinary proceedings and even thereafter the Tribunal had permitted the applicant concerned to challenge the validity of the charge sheet issued to him. Taking notice of the totality of the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the applications require to be allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. But we make it clear that this will not preclude the rights of the respondents to continue with the proceedings in their exclusive discretion. The delay in issuing a fresh charge sheet in compliance with the rules will not be liable to be challenged on the grounds of delay.
9. We refrain from passing any orders as about costs.
10. Let a copy of this order be placed in OA 1528/2009.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) ( M. Ramachandran ) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) `SRD