The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of specific charges, assessment of loss of revenue, and practical fault in imposing punishment under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 18155 of 2015 is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short "the Tribunal") on 10th of July, 2013 in O.A. No. 252 of 2008, whereby the order of punishment withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 16th of May, 2008, was set aside.

2. The challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 6875 of 2016 is to an order passed by the Tribunal on 10th of July, 2013 in O.A. No. 303 of 2011, whereby an Original Application filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") for a direction to the petitioners to consider his case for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted, stands allowed.

3. The applicant is the member of Indian Revenue Service and on the relevant date was functioning as Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-IV, Surat. There was search and seizure action in the premises of certain jewellers in Gujarat on 23rd of September, 1995. On certain acts of omission and commission noticed by the department and on account of failure to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant, the applicant was charged for misconduct under Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A charge-sheet was issued on 13th of June, 2001. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30th of July, 2003. Show-cause notice for minor penalty was issued to the applicant on 5th of January, 2005 and final punishment, as mentioned above, was imposed on 16th of May, 2008.

4. The applicant challenged the order of punishment before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings was delayed inflicting great mental suffering to the applicant for such a long stretch of period of more than 10 years and that there is no specific charge regarding any benefit granted to the assessee by misplacing of the documents and that there is no assessment of any loss of revenue to the Government. According to him, number of pages actually found and seized on 23rd of September, 1995 was 66 and not 73, as alleged by the department. Therefore, there is no question of entertaining any suspicious conduct, either by the Inspectors or any member of the raid party, as the Inspector himself had informed about mis-numbering of pages of File B-1/1. It is contended that punishment has been imposed without any practical fault of the applicant and unnecessary liability has been fixed on his head ignoring the ground reality.

5. The applicant before the Tribunal challenged the order of punishment on the ground that there is inordinate delay in charging him and that the Central Vigilance Commission and UPSC have given advice contrary to the view of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the matter is required to be referred to Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) as per their circular dated 13th of June, 1995. It is also contended that there is no justification for UPSC to treat this case as a major penalty proceeding. It is also contended that the order of the Finance Minister was not a speaking order and was passed without assigning any reason and without referring the matter to the DOPT. Therefore, the order is non est in the eye of law.

6. The learned Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act observed as under:-

"7. It may not be lost sight of the fact that Mr. Sinha was not a search and seizure officer and was only a Supervisory Officer. From Para 4 of the enquiry report it is revealed that Mr. Rajiv Sinha while working as ADIT (Investigation) Unit-IV, Surat planned and organized a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the business premises of Sh. Mathurbhai B. Rudani, C/o. Ms. Sraddha Jewellers, Surat and the search commenced on 12.09.1995 and concluded on 12.10.1995. Mr. Rajiv Sinha had planned this action and was totally in-charge