Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and others filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Nagpur Bench, dated 26th September 2003 in Original Application No. 2075 of 2003. The CAT had quashed a charge memo dated 07.11.2000 issued to respondent No.1, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, on the grounds of inexplicable delay and because some charges related to discharge of quasi-judicial functions. The respondent joined the Income Tax Department in 1964 as an Upper Division Clerk and was promoted to Income Tax Officer in 1980 and Assistant Commissioner in 1991. He was suspended on 28.03.1995 pending investigation in a criminal case (Special Case No. 8 of 1995) and was acquitted on 09.04.2001. A disproportionate assets case was withdrawn by CBI on 20.03.2002. The charge memo pertained to alleged irregularities in assessments made during 1991-1992. The CAT found that the charges were based on acts done in quasi-judicial capacity and that the delay of over 8 years in initiating proceedings was unjustified. The High Court admitted the petition on 26.04.2004 and stayed the CAT order, permitting the departmental enquiry to proceed but requiring permission before imposing punishment. The Supreme Court stayed that order on 23.08.2004 in SLP (Civil) 11812 of 2004 and later disposed of the SLP on 12.12.2005, requesting the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously. The High Court upheld the CAT order, finding no perversity or error of jurisdiction, and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Charge Memo Quashed - The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed a charge memo issued after 8 years from the alleged misconduct, holding that the delay was inexplicable and caused prejudice to the employee. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the charges related to acts done in discharge of quasi-judicial functions and the employer failed to explain the delay (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 07.11.2000 on the ground of delay and because the charges pertained to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the employee.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing the charge memo dated 07.11.2000.
Law Points
- Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings
- charges relating to quasi-judicial functions
- prejudice to employee
- Article 226
- Article 227
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 101
WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2004
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Prasanna B. Varale
Shri S.B. Ahirkar for the petitioners; Shri M.M. Sudame for respondent No.1
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India; Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes; Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur Region
Shri Arun s/o Ramkrushna Pimpalwar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax; The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing a charge memo.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Union of India and others) sought to set aside the CAT order dated 26.09.2003 which quashed the charge memo dated 07.11.2000.
Filing Reason
The CAT quashed the charge memo on grounds of delay and because charges related to quasi-judicial functions.
Previous Decisions
The CAT allowed the employee's Original Application No. 2075 of 2003 and quashed the charge memo. This Court admitted the writ petition on 26.04.2004 and stayed the CAT order, permitting the departmental enquiry to proceed but requiring permission before imposing punishment. The Supreme Court stayed that order on 23.08.2004 in SLP (Civil) 11812 of 2004 and later disposed of the SLP on 12.12.2005, requesting this Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.
Issues
Whether the CAT was justified in quashing the charge memo on the ground of delay?
Whether the charges relating to quasi-judicial functions could be the subject of disciplinary proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the CAT erred in quashing the charge memo as the delay was not inordinate and the charges were serious.
The respondent employee supported the CAT order, contending that the delay was unexplained and the charges pertained to acts done in quasi-judicial capacity.
Ratio Decidendi
Disciplinary proceedings initiated after an unexplained delay of over 8 years for acts done in discharge of quasi-judicial functions are liable to be quashed as they cause prejudice to the employee and are not sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the challenge raised by respondent No.1 employee and has quashed the charge memo dated 07.11.2000 on the ground that the same suffered from inexplicable delay and some of the charges therein were in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the said respondent.
Procedural History
The employee filed Original Application No. 2075 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on 26.09.2003 quashing the charge memo. The Union of India filed Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2004 in the High Court, which was admitted on 26.04.2004 with a stay of the CAT order and permission to proceed with enquiry subject to conditions. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's order on 23.08.2004 in SLP (Civil) 11812 of 2004 and later disposed of the SLP on 12.12.2005, requesting the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 13.02.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
