The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a writ petition challenging the quashing of a charge memo against the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court cited an inordinate delay of over ten years in issuing the charge memo and highlighted the potential prejudice caused to the officer.
The petitioners, the Union of India and another sought to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing the charge memo dated 11.06.2014 against the respondent, Pavan Ved, the Commissioner of Income Tax.
The charge memo alleged that the respondent had wrongly decided five appeals during his tenure as Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) at Raipur between 2003 and 2007, thereby ignoring material facts.
The petitioner revenue, represented by Ms. Madhurima Tatia argued that the charge memo against the respondent was wrongly quashed by the Tribunal. They stressed that the Tribunal misapplied the legal principles.
The respondent, represented by Mr. Puneet Jain contended that the charge memo was belated and retaliatory. He argued that the Tribunal had rightly considered the delay and upheld his quasi-judicial independence. He emphasised the lack of malafide and highlighted the approval of his decisions by higher authorities.
The bench observed that the delay in issuing the charge memo was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. It was also emphasised that the respondent, in his quasi-judicial capacity, could not reasonably be expected to have access to records of cases decided many years ago.
The court noted the grave prejudice likely to be caused to the respondent due to the prolonged delay in initiating disciplinary action against him.
The bench rejected the petitioners’ argument that the delay was due to the lengthy procedure required for issuing a charge memo to a Group ‘A’ officer like Pavan Ved. The bench pointed out that the petitioners failed to provide any justifiable reason for the delay, other than a vague assertion about procedural requirements.
Further, the court referred to its previous decision in a similar case, Union of India v. Sh. S. Rajguru, wherein it was held that disciplinary actions against quasi-judicial authorities should not be initiated solely based on decisions made in their quasi-judicial capacity unless malafide is alleged. The court found that the respondent had acted diligently and the allegations of malafide were not substantiated.
In conclusion, the division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision to quash the charge memo against the respondent. The bench also stressed the importance of ensuring the independence of quasi-judicial authorities and reiterated that disciplinary actions should not be pursued arbitrarily or with undue delay.
The bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India, highlighting the need for timely and justified disciplinary actions against government officials and adhering to the principle of natural justice and the importance of protecting the integrity of quasi-judicial functions within the administrative framework.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
