The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which confirmed the disciplinary proceeding against the Income Tax commissioner for allowing unsubstantiated claims of sub-contract expenses by wrong finding.
Alka Rajvanshi Jain, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (Tribunal) in Original Application whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the challenge on the Charge Memorandum.
The petitioner was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur. While working so, she was issued a letter dated April 06, 2016, by the respondents, calling upon her to submit her version in connection with the disposal of the appeal decided by her on February 13, 2015, in the case of M/s Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The petitioner submitted her reply explaining the order passed in the said appeal. It was also her stand that the order passed by her has been subsequently upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), vide its order dated January 11, 2017.
A Charge Memorandum was issued to her by the respondents, proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules of 1965‟), wherein, three Articles of Charge were framed against the petitioner.
The petitioner stated that the charges levelled against her cannot be construed as misconduct which requires imposition of a major penalty by conducting disciplinary proceedings, as the order was passed by her in discharge of quasi-judicial functions as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The respondent stated that the Charge Memorandum has been issued by the disciplinary authority after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. They justified the issuance of a Charge Memorandum.
The petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary action on such allegations, which cannot be construed as misconduct since the same is in the context of an order rendered by her while discharging her functions as a quasi-judicial body;
It was argued that “Mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law done by a quasi-judicial officer while exercising lawful jurisdiction, cannot be made the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings; Charge Memorandum should have revealed as to how the order passed by the petitioner could be treated as misconduct.”
On the other hand, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and as such warrants no interference by this Court. It was submitted that the Tribunal has rightly noted that the inquiry in the present case has already been completed the petitioner has already submitted her representation on the inquiry report and more so, the petitioner was allowed to put forward her case before the disciplinary authority.
The view of the competent authority is that if the impugned order passed by an officer reveals culpable negligence while discharging quasi-judicial function, then such conduct can be made subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. But, whether culpable negligence shall be sustained, is a matter of evidence to be produced and considered by the disciplinary authority.
It was found that under the issuance of the Charge Memorandum dated September 26, 2017, the disciplinary proceedings have been completed. The UPSC advice has also come. The petitioner has been given a copy of the UPSC advice and Inquiry Report. She has also submitted her representation on the Inquiry Report. If that is so, the proceedings are at the final stage.
Unfortunately, neither the copy of the report of the inquiry officer nor the UPSC advice and the representation made by the petitioner, have been placed on the record of the Court.
A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta instead of deciding the pleas itself, held that the disciplinary authority should first consider the same by keeping in view, the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Further held that “If the disciplinary authority agrees with the pleas of the petitioner, then it shall close the proceedings. But if the disciplinary authority is of the view that the Charge Memorandum has been rightly issued, the disciplinary authority shall pass a reasoned order in the manner directed by us in that regard, so also on the Inquiry report.”
Without interfering with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the Court disposed of the writ petition and dismissed the application.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
