Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Dhananjay Kumar vs Income Tax on 14 May, 2019
1. OA/050/00489/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA /050/00489/2019
Date of order 14.05.2019
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
Dhananjay Kumar, son of Sri Ranbir Sinha, Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Civil Code : 00020, Office of the Principal Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai presently residing at Shanti
Sadan, Shanti Marg, Near Gaya Line Gumti, Mithapur, Patna -
800001.
...... Applicant.
By advocate: Sri M.P. Dixit.
Verses
1. The Union of India through the Secretary [Revenue], Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi
- 110001.
2. The Director General of Vigilance [Income Tax], Ministry of
Finance, department of Revenue, Government of India, Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Marg, Dayal Singh Public Library, New Delhi -
110002.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 373, Aayakar
Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020.
4. Shri K. Ravi Kiran, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
& Inquiry Officer, Camp Office, Mumbai- 400020 [Maharashtra].
... ..... Respondents.
By advocate: Sri H.P.Singh
O R D E R (ORAL)
JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER [J] : - In the instant OA, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.04.2019 [Annexure-A/7] issued by Shri K. Ravi Kiran, Addl. CIT & Inquiry Officer, Range-8, Hyderabad, whereby his request for not posting hearings till disposal of his stay petition by GDIT [Vig] was rejected stating therein that not posting the hearings would tantamount to granting stay of the proceedings. The applicant has further prayed for a
2. OA/050/00489/2019 direction upon the respondents to stay the enquiry proceedings with regard to departmental proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dated 28.02.2011 under Rule 14 of CCS [CCA] Rules, 1965 [Annexure-A/3] till the examination of prosecution witnesses is completed in the criminal proceeding as contained in Annexure-A/1, initiated by the CBI Spl. Case No.39 of 2011 in the Court of Learned Session's Court Mumbai.
2. At the outset, the respondents have raised the issue of jurisdiction of the instant application. The respondents have pleaded that the since the applicant is posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Mumbai and cause of action arose in Mumbai, this Bench of the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
3. In several other OAs, this Tribunal has taken a consistent views that since the applicant is challenging the order passed by the Inquiry Officer, dated 08.04.2019 [Annexure-A/7] issued by the Addl. CIT & Inquiry Officer, Hyderabad, the jurisdiction shall lie as per provisions in A.T. Act, 1985. Earlier in OA 141/2009, this Tribunal had held hat territorial jurisdiction of Bihar does not arise merely because the petitioner has received a communication with regard to his non selection, which was sent from the State of Rajasthan. The matter was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in CWJC No.17085/2009, Yogendra Das Bihangam vs. Union of India & Ors. through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Patna not only upheld the order of this Tribunal, but also observed that the law laid down in Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966, does not apply to the case in hand, rather the decision rendered in Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. Union of India, 2007 [4] PLJR 292, has previous deal with the
3. OA/050/00489/2019 territorial jurisidctional facet and the said decision applied on all fours to the case in hand.
4. Similar matter came before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in CWJC No.20542 of 2012, Jit Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors, wherein Their Lordships have categorically observed that the appropriate authority for deciding such matter of recruitment will be the Courts/Tribunals of Allahabad where regional office of SSC is situated and where the petitioner had submitted his application. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since he has received an intimation at Patna, this Tribunal has acquired jurisdiction. A similar matter came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2004[2] Administrative Total Judgements page 136, K. Balaji vs. Integral Coach Facor, Chennai, wherein Their Lordships have categorically observed that merely because the petitioner had received a communication at Bangalore, the jurisdiction is not made out as the rejection was made out at Chennai.
5. Since in the instant case , the cause of action arose in Mumbai, such a matter cannot be agitated at Patna. This Bench cannot entertain such matter. Hence, the OA is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for redress. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/- [Dinesh Sharma]/M[A] [Jayesh V. Bhairavia)/M[J] mps