Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : B.P.Jeevan Reddy
Union Of India
Versus
Upendra Singh
Case No. : 7484 of 1993
Date of Decision : 2/17/94
Advocates Appeared: Ahmed Altaf : Goswamy N.N. : Jain R.K. : Mahra D.S. : Mishra P.N. : Sambindia S.T. : Srivastava A.K. : Varma Ashish
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 133-A – Illegal and arbitrary - Incriminating documents and evidence collected - FOR purposes of this case it is not necessary to set out the statement of imputations which is a very lengthy one referring elaborately to the material and evidence which was sought to be relied upon against respondent at the proposed inquiry - As soon as the memo of charges was served upon the respondent, he approached tribunal for quashing charges - Tribunal admitted original application and passed following interim order - Learned counsel submitted that applicant has been served with a charge-sheet on account of charges which relate to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by applicant - He therefore, prayed for that as per Supreme courts decision in the case - Union of India interim directions may be issued restraining respondents from proceeding against the applicant under the Disciplinary & Appeal Rules – Held, Court must mention that learned counsel for respondent did not dispute the proposition that a disciplinary inquiry can be held even with respect to judicial/quasi-judicial orders passed by an officer. His main contention was that the charges are not sustainable, which contention, as we have indicated above, cannot be countenanced at this stage of the proceedings - Before parting with this case, we may refer to the decision of this court in Union of India this court held that a disciplinary inquiry can be held even with respect to the conduct of an officer in discharge of his judicial or quasi-judicial duties. Having said so, this court set out the situations in which disciplinary action can be taken with respect to the judicial/quasi-judicial conduct. Judgment will bring out the ratio - CERTAINLY, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases – Appeal allowed
Judgment
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.
(1) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi quashing the charges (charge-sheet) framed on 7/02/1991 against the respondent. The respondent is a member of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and is presently working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. On 7/02/1991, a memorandum of charges was issued to him accompanied by a "Statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of article of charges" framed against him. The aRTICLES of charges are the following: Article-1
THE said Shri Upendra Singh while posted as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, B.S.D. (North) Range Bombay during the financial year 1986-87, got a survey under Section 133-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 conducted in the cases of Raghuvanshi group of builders on 9/01/1987. During the course of this survey incriminating documents and a confessional statement of the assessees showing unaccounted receipts of Rs. 1.56 crores and admitted unaccounted incomes of Rs. 46.60 lakhs earned by four firms of this group, viz. M/s Raghuvanshi Builders, M/s Raghuvanshi Developers, M/s Raghuvanshi Associates and M/s Raghani Builders, were obtained :
(A) The said Shri Upendra Singh initiated proceedings under Section 144-A in the case of M/s Raghuvanshi Builders, M/s Raghuvanshi Developers and M/s Raghuvanshi Associates in an illegal and improper manner.
(B) During the aforementioned proceedings under Section 144-A, the said Shri Upendra Singh neither examined the incriminating documents and evidence collected during the survey, nor passed any orders under Section 144-A, in spite of being aware of the evidence gathered during the survey.
(C) The said Shri Upendra Singh during the aforementioned proceedings under Section 144-A improperly and illegally acquiesced in the assessees offer to disclose only an amount of Rs. 11,27,794.00 in the names of the aforesaid firms and did not direct the assessing officer to bring to tax the full amount of undisclosed incomes of these firms as admitted during the survey on 9/01/1987.
(D) The said Shri Upendra Singh gave illegal and improper directions to the assessing officer to complete the assessments in the cases of M/s Raghuvanshi Builders, M/s Raghuvanshi Developers and M/s Raghuvanshi Associates under Section 143(1 even though at the relevant time proceedings under Section 144-A of I.T. Act, 1961 were pending before him and these cases did not come within the purview of the Summary Assessment Scheme of the Amnesty Scheme of the CBDT.
2. Shri Upendra Singh has, therefore, violated Rules 3(l)(i), 3(1(ii) and 3(l)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
(2) FOR the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to set out the statement of imputations which is a very lengthy one referring elaborately to the material and evidence which was sought to be relied upon against the respondent at the proposed inquiry. As soon as the memo of charges was served upon the respondent, he approached the tribunal for quashing the charges. The tribunal admitted the original application and passed the following interim order:
"THE learned counsel submitted that the applicant has been served with a charge-sheet on account of the charges which relate to the discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the applicant. He, therefore, prayed for that as per Supreme courts decision in the case of V.D. Trivedi v. Union of India interim directions may be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding against the applicant under the Disciplinary & Appeal Rules.
WE have considered the matter and in the interest of justice, we restrain the respondents from proceeding with disciplinary action in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 7/02/1991 for a period of 14 days. List the case on 18/04/1991 for further consideration of interim relief.
ORDER Dasti."
(3) AGAINST the said interim order,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
