JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J.:—Leave granted.

The respondent, while working as Income-tax Officer, Muktsar during the year 1982-83 completed certain assessments. A charge memorandum dated 2-5-1989 was served on him to the effect it-was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. A statement of article of charge framed against him was to the following effect:

Statement of Article of Charge Framed Against Shri K. K. Dhawan, A Group A Now Posted As Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, Bombay.

Article I

Shri K. K. Dhawan, while functioning as I.T.O. "A" Ward, Muktsar during 1982-1983 completed nine assessments in the case of:

(1) M / s. Chananna Automobiles,

(2) M/s. Gupta Cotton Industries,

(3) M/s. Ajay Cotton Industries,

(4) M/s. National Rice Mills,

(5) M/s. Tek Chand Buchram,

(6) M/s. Tilak Cotton Industries,

(7) M/s. Chandi Ram Behari Lal,

(8) M/s. Phuman Mal Chandi Ram, and

(9) M/s. Modern Tractors.

in an irregular manner, in undue haste and apparently with a view to conferring undue favour upon the assessees concerned.

By his above acts Shri Dhawan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of. a Govt. servant, thereby violating provisions of Rules 3(l)(i), 3(i)(ii) and 3(l)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

This was accompanied by a statement of imputation of his misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the article of charge framed against him.

2. In each of the nine cases of the assessees above referred to, the details relating to misconduct or misbehaviour were furnished. Therefore, it was charged that the respondent had violated the provisions of Rules 3(l) (i), 3(1) (ii) and 3(l)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964. The necessary documents in support of these allegations were also enclosed.

3. Against the said memorandum dt. 2-5-1989, the respondent preferred an application 0. A. No. 2540/89 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi praying for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings and to consider his case for promotion on merits without resort to the sealed cover procedure.

4. By its order dated 8-2-1991, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi directed the respondent Union of India to open the sealed cover immediately and implement the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee in so far as it pertained to the petitioner and to promote him to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax if he was found fit for promotion within two weeks from the date of said order.

5. Thereafter, by a detailed judgment dated 22-3-1991, the Tribunal relying on S. L. P. (C) Nos. 2635-36/89 in Civil Appeal No. 4986/87/ 90, held that the action taken by the officer was quasi-judicial and should not have formed the basis of disciplinary action. Therefore, the application was allowed and the impugned memorandum dated 2-5-1989 was quashed. The earlier order dated 8-2-1991 to open the sealed cover and implement the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee was made absolute.

6. Aggrieved by these two orders, the present special leave petitions have been preferred.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri K. T. S. Tulsi submits as under:

i) That in a case where disciplinary proeedings are pending against the respondent, the procedure of opening the sealed cover should not have been resorted to. Otherwise, it would amount to putting a premium on misconduct.

ii) The Tribunal failed to appreciate the ratio of the order in C. A. Nos. 4986-87/ 90. In that case, the enquiry report showed that the charge framed against. the officer had not been proved. That is entirely different from holding that in a case of quasi-judicial action taken by the officer no disciplinary action could be taken. The true purport of that observation is only to buttress the earlier finding that the charge had not been proved. Therefore, reliance ought not to have been placed on th