Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1900
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ.
Union of India
Versus
S. Rajguru
W.P.(C). No. 5113 of 2014 & CM No.10192 of 2014
Decided on : 13-08-2014
For the Petitioner:R.V. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
Errors of law or mistakes by a quasi-judicial authority, without malafide intention or lack of devotion to duty, cannot form the basis for disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Central Administrative Tribunal Order - Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - [Rule 3(1)(ii)] - [Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Block Period 01.04.1996 to 09.10.2002, AY 2002-03, Block Period- 01.04.1989 to 17.09.1998, Block Period- 01.04.1989 to 23.09.1998] - The court held that the respondent, a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), could not be subjected to disciplinary action for errors of law or mistakes in the absence of malafide intention, dishonest action, or lack of devotion to duty. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations from previous cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside a Charge Memorandum against the respondent, a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for alleged irregularities in appellate orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the respondent were not sustainable as they were based on errors of law or mistakes in quasi-judicial orders without evidence of malafide intention or lack of devotion to duty.
Issues: The controversies included whether the respondent's actions as a quasi-judicial authority warranted disciplinary action, procedural infirmities in issuing the charge memo, and the justification for delay in initiating proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that errors of law or mistakes by a quasi-judicial authority, without malafide intention or lack of devotion to duty, could not form the basis for disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized the need for fearlessness and independence in quasi-judicial functions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and application, upholding the Tribunal's decision and finding no reason to interfere with it.
Vibhu Bakhru, J (Oral):
CAV No.672/2014
The respondent has entered appearnance. Caveat stands discharged.
W.P.(C) 5113/2014 & CM No.10192/2014
1. The present petition impugns the order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No.2815/2012, setting aside the Charge Memorandum dated 26.04.2012. The said order is hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are as under:-
3. The respondent was working as a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short ‘CIT (Appeals)’) at Cochin from November 2005 to February 2007. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short ‘CBDT’) received a Secret Note from Sh. B. Ravi Balan, the reporting officer of the respondent from June to October, 2005, stating that the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals), had allowed certain appeals without properly appreciating the facts or going through the records. Shri Balan had noted that this “gives birth to strong suspicion with regard to his integrity, however there is no specific evidence in this regard”. Shri Balan retired in October 2005 and the ACR of the respondent was written in November 2005. It was asserted that the same was not reviewed. Further, in the latter part of the said year (November 2005 to March 2006) the reporting officer, as well as the reviewing officer, did not record any adverse comment in the respondent’s ACR.
4. By letter dated 06.05.2010, a copy of the said Secret Note was forwarded for examination to Director of Income Tax (Vigilance), who in the reports dated 03.01.2012 and 18.01.2012 stated that out of nineteen appellate orders passed by the respondent and inspected by him, irregularities were noticed in six appellate orders.
5. By a letter dated 02.02.2012, the respondent was asked to provide explanation in respect of the orders passed in six appeals in which irregularities were noticed. The respondent, by his letter dated 01.03.2012 replied to the said letter dated 02.02.2012, providing explanations in respect of six appellate orders passed by him and requested for closing of the matter. The DIT (Vigilance) examined the reply of the respondent and submitted his reports dated 06.03.2012 and 15.03.2012, stating that the explanations provided by the respondent were unconvincing in respect of four appellate orders.
6. Thereafter, on 26.04.2012 - just four days prior to the date of superannuation of the respondent - a Charge Memorandum was issued formulating four Articles of Charge against the respondent. The said four Articles of Charge are as follows:
“ARTICLE-I
Shri S. Rajguru, while functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi, committed irregularity in the appeal order passed by him on 01.09.2005 in the case of M/s. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. (Block Period 01.04.1996 to 09.10.2002) by deleting additions which had been made by the assessing officer without proper verification of the facts and examination of records.
By his aforesaid act, Shri S. Rajguru failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CSS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
Shri S. Rajguru, while functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi committed irregularity in the appeal order passed by him on 25.08.2005 in the case of M/s. Skyline Builders (AY 2002-03) by allowing the assessee’s appeal in disregard of the provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
By his aforesaid act, Shri S. Rajguru failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III
Shri S. Rajguru, while functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi committed irregularity in the appeal order passed by him on 23.08.2005 in the case of Shri M.M. Rasheed (Block Period- 01.04.1989 to 17.09.1998) by deleting additions which had been made by the assessing officer without proper verification of t
