Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through ... vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 28 January, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Central Board Of Direct Taxes Through ... vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 28 January, 2026

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") assailing the summons/notice dated 12th April, 2019 issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes ("the Commission"), whereby the personal appearance of the Chairman, CBDT, was directed to appear before the Commission on 30th April, 2019. The summons were issued in connection with a representation made by Respondent No. 2, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, seeking reinstatement and revocation of his suspension from service with the revenue department.

2. By order dated 29th April, 2019, the Court stayed the operation of the W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 1 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

3. The material placed on record indicates that Respondent No. 2 addressed a representation dated 11th December, 2018 to the Commission seeking reliefs against CBDT, in relation to reinstatement and revocation of his suspension arising from criminal proceedings and issues pertaining to his transfer order dated 4th May, 2018.

4. CBDT objected to the Commission proceeding on a representation which, in substance, invited interference in service matters governed by statutory service rules and the disciplinary framework. Despite the objection, the Commission, in its meeting held on 1st March, 2019, made recommendations observing that the suspension of Respondent No. 2 on account of criminal proceedings had no nexus with his workplace, since Respondent No. 2 had been granted bail, a compassionate view be taken and his suspension be considered for revocation.

5. Thereafter, the impugned notice/summons dated 12th April, 2019 were issued, directing the personal appearance of the Chairman, CBDT.

6. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order to quash and set aside the notice dated 12.04.2019 issued by Respondent No.1 to the Chairman of the Petitioner organization to appear in person on 30.04.2019.

b. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order to quash and set aside the investigation/inquiry initiated against the Petitioner in the matter of representation filed by the Respondent No.2 for reinstatement and revocation of suspension as it over rides the authority of Disciplinary Authority, who exercises the power on behalf of the President of India.

c. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order to allow Advocates to practice before the Respondent No.1.

W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 2 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:33:22 d. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order to allow Authorized Representatives to appear on behalf of Persons called upon by the Respondent No.1."

7. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC for the Petitioner, submits that the Commission has acted beyond the scope of its constitutional mandate. Without prejudice, she contends that even assuming the Commission had the jurisdiction to examine the representation and make recommendations, it had no authority to compel the personal appearance of the Chairman of the CBDT. She assails the issuance of summons as arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and without jurisdiction. Additionally, she also makes submissions with respect to the merits of the allegations levelled against Respondent No. 2, which resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings against him, for which he had to secure bail.

8. The Commission seeks to justify issuance of the impugned summons by invoking its power under Article 338A of the Constitution of India. It is asserted that Respondent No. 2's representation levelled allegation of "continuing mal-treatment, atrocities" on account of "suspension and transfer", despite him being a "meritorious officer"; and in that context the Chairman, CBDT, was summoned. The Commission further asserts that the Chairman took the issue of issuance of summons as a matter of "ego" and, on that account "does not have any regards" to the constitutional body.

9. Moreover, the Commission, while purporting to examine the representation, goes further and effectively offers a defence of Respondent No. 2 by recording as follows:

"5. That the Respondent no.1 on perusal of the case of the Respondent no.2 filed before it, found that the Respondent no.2 has W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:33:22 been fallen prey to his wife as his wife has strong political connections in Uttar Pradesh and therefore the case registered against the Respondent no.2 seems to be concocted, frivolous and devoid of merits.

6. That the Respondent no.1 further found during the course of its examination that the Respondent no.2 has been made guilty of an offence which is stated to be committed in 2017."

10. The challenge in the present petition is directed primarily to the issuance of summons compelling the personal appearance of the Chairman. The Court is not called upon to adjudicate the merits of the suspension or transfer, nor the correctness of the criminal allegations. Those issues lie within the domain of the competent disciplinary authority and the statutory forums constituted for service disputes.

11. The Commission draws authority from Article 338A of the Constitution of India. Clause (5) of Article 338A sets out its duties, including to "investigate and monitor" safeguards for Scheduled Tribes and to "inquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Tribes". Clause (8) of the said Article confers powers of a civil court "while investigating" or "inquiring" under Clause (5), including summoning and enforcing attendance, and directing discovery and production of documents.

12. The constitutional conferment of civil court powers, however, is not an independent reservoir of adjudicatory authority. It is an enabling provision meant to facilitate investigation and inquiry within the limits of Article 338A(5). This Court, in India Oil Corporation Ltd. v. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes & Anr.1, while construing Article 338A, has held that there is "no provision that empowers the Commission to issue W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 4 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:33:22 specific directions or orders", and that the Commission is "not an Alternative Forum for dispute resolution" and "has no adjudicatory function".

13. The said decision also notices the Supreme Court's exposition in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.2, that the expression "all the powers of a civil court" in Article 338 (similarly worded to Article 338A) is confined to procedural powers for investigation and inquiry and does not carry with it the substantive powers of a civil court such as granting injunctions. Further, this Court, while examining Article 338 in Union of India & Anr. v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.3, emphasised that the Commission cannot assume the role of an adjudicatory body and cannot issue coercive directions that, in substance, supplant statutory mechanisms.

14. Tested on these principles, the impugned summons cannot be sustained. The representation of Respondent No. 2, as projected, essentially sought reinstatement and revocation of suspension, and questioned transfer- related decisions. These are classic incidents of service jurisprudence. Even if the Commission were to examine whether any complaint discloses deprivation of rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes within Article 338A(5)(b), the constitutional scheme does not permit the Commission to supervise, direct, or pressure the disciplinary authority into revoking a suspension, or to effectively sit in judgment over service decisions as though it were an appellate forum

15. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Commission, rather than 1 W.P.(C) 9186/2016.

(1996) 6 SCC 606.

W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 5 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:33:22 demonstrating a focused inquiry into deprivation of rights and safeguards, travels into areas wholly outside its remit. It labels the service actions as "atrocities" and ventures to describe the criminal proceedings as "concocted, frivolous and devoid of merits". Such assertions, apart from being intemperate in institutional pleadings, reveal an approach that borders on adjudication of service and criminal issues. That is not what Article 338A contemplates.

16. The summons in the present case is also vitiated on the axis of purpose and proportionality. A power to summon must be exercised to advance a constitutionally permitted investigation or inquiry, and only to the extent necessary for that purpose. Here, the Commission had already recorded its recommendations on 1st March, 2019. The impugned summons, issued thereafter, does not disclose why the personal appearance of the Chairman, CBDT, was necessary, as opposed to calling for records, seeking a written response, or requiring the presence of an appropriate officer conversant with the facts. A constitutional body is entitled to respect, but its processes cannot be deployed as a tool to compel the attendance of the highest functionary of a department in a service dispute where no necessity is demonstrated and where statutory mechanisms exist for redressal.

17. For these reasons, the Court holds that the summons/notice dated 12 th April, 2019 directing the personal appearance of the Chairman, CBDT, was issued in excess of jurisdiction and cannot stand.

18. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned summons/notice dated 12th April, 2019 is set aside.

19. It is clarified that this order does not pronounce upon the merits of the 3 W.P.(C) 2390/2012.

W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 6 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:33:22 grievances raised by Respondent No. 2 in his representation. All remedies available to Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law remain unaffected. It is also clarified that nothing herein prevents the Commission from acting within the confines of Article 338A, in a manner consistent with the constitutional scheme and the principles noticed above.

20. The present petition is allowed in the above terms. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 28, 2026 nk W.P.(C) 4489/2019 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:33:22

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders