Promotion can’t be denied to Income Tax Officer merely because there was a contemplation of Disciplinary Proceedings against him: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr v. Dinesh Singh and Anr held that promotion of an Income Tax Officer cannot be denied merely because there was a contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him.

The present writ petition has been filed by Respondent 1 (R1) presently working on the post of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax wherein he has prayed for quashing of the order whereby promotions were made from the Grade of Additional Commissioner/ Additional Director of Income Tax to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) and has also sought his promotion to the position of CIT in furtherance to promotion of his junior to the subject post.

R1 was working as an IRS officer from the year 1994 working in the post of Assistant Commissioner. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax then as Joint Commissioner and thereafter as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. On June 5, 2015, a DPC was held for preparing a panel for the year 2014-15 for making promotions to the post of CIT. The panel included the name of R1 and also forwarded his name as a recommendation to the Competent Authority. The petitioners for which contended that CVC gave its first stage advice to the Ministry of Home Affairs for initiating major penalty proceedings against the R1. Furthermore, the name of R1 did not find mention in the order of selection.

R1 hence approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which ruled in favor of the respondent and directed the petitioners to promote R1 from the date his immediate juniors had been promoted. Aggrieved, the petitioners hence have approached the present Court.

It is contended by the petitioners that the case falls under clause 7 of the O.M. dated 14.09.1992 issued by DoPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India and once a charge-sheet is issued against a government servant, then the sealed cover procedure ought to be followed.

It was contended by R1 that he had been assessed as ‘Fit’ at the time DPC had convened for making recommendations for promotions to the post of CIT. It was further stated that according to terms of the subsequent OM dated 14.09.1992, the parameters within which the DPC is required to adopt the sealed cover procedure in the case of a Government servant who falls within the zone of consideration has limited to the categories of:

(1) A Government servant who is under suspension;

(2) A Government servant in respect of whom a chargesheet has been issued

(3) A Government servant in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charges is pending.

And in the instant case none of the above criteria was met.

The Delhi High Court in the present case after perusing the arguments made by the parties, in record of the relevant precedents establishing the position, was of the considered opinion that the case did not fall under the OM merely because disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated against him. Further, there was no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity in the judgment passed by the Central Administrative tribunal that warrants interference in judicial review. The Hon’ble Court hence directed the petitioners to implement the impugned judgment in 6 weeks from the date of order.