Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Varinder Mehta vs Union Of India Through on 20 August, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1622/2010 New Delhi, this the 20th day of August, 2010 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Shri Varinder Mehta S/o Shri Parshotam Singh Mehta, R/o 40-D, Kenndy Avenue, Amritsar (Punjab). Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Gupta) Versus Union of India through 1. 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:
The applicant is facing departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 since 04.11.2004 when the chargesheet proceeding departmentally against him came to be issued. The status of the enquiry is that the department has examined its evidence and applicant has submitted defence brief.
2. Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question chargesheet dated 04.11.2004 on the ground that the same was not approved by the disciplinary authority which, in the case of the applicant, would be Finance Minister, and instead the same has been approved by Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance). It is urged that since the charge has not been approved by the disciplinary authority, the same would be illegal and any proceedings held subsequent thereto shall also fall. It is not disputed during the course of arguments that the matter in hand is covered by decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 1031/2010 in the matter of S.S. Kamwal vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 28.05.2010 and also in OA No. 1434/08 in the matter of Sri S.K. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 18.12.2008 against which Writ Petition (Civil) No.13223/2009 filed by Union of India has also been dismissed on 18.11.2009.
3. Mr. Singh, counsel defending the respondents, however, contends that this court may not entertain this Original Application as the same has been filed as regards the cause of action which accrued to the applicant on 04.11.2004 and, therefore, present Application would be barred by limitation as provided in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. On a question put to Mr. Singh, counsel defending the respondents, as to whether this argument can be taken even after the enquiry is concluded and the applicant is punished, learned counsel, in all fairness, states that such an argument can be raised even after the order of punishment is passed.
4. In the facts, as mentioned above, and particularly when this ground can be taken even after the order of punishment is passed, the cause of action has to be considered as recurring one. Even otherwise, if the charge has to be ultimately set aside having not been approved by the competent authority, all the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and total wastage of time. That being so, we dispose of this Original application and quash the chargesheet dated 04.11.2004 with liberty to the respondents to first get the charge approved from the competent authority and then proceed against the applicant. No costs.
5. At this stage, counsel for the applicant states that if the charge may be approved by the competent authority, the department may not examine the evidence afresh, and the enquiry may start from the stage where it is today. We order accordingly.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/