I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M Bhagawati, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, while functioning as the Income Tax Officer, at North Lakhimpur, was served with a memorandum, dated 15.5.2002, informing him that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him in terms of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short, CCA Rules). Altogether five articles of charges were, initially, served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges leveled against him. The petitioner was, then, served with a supplementary charge-sheet, which contained one article of charge, but this article of charge contained several allegations. The petitioner denied the allegations contained, in the article of charge, which the supplementary charge-sheet embodied.

2. As the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was accordingly held. The enquiring authority did not find the Charge Nos. I and II proved; but it found the Charge Nos. III, IV and V proved to the extent that the petitioner had exhibited lack of devotion to his duty. As regards the supplementary charge-sheet, the Inquiring Authority held that the charge of lack of devotion to his duty, on the part of the present petitioner, stood proved.

3. The disciplinary authority, having gone through the findings of the enquiring authority, invited the petitioner's comments on the findings of the enquiry. Having considered the enquiry report and the petitioner's comments thereon, the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings, which had been reached by the enquiring authority, on the Charges, as indicated hereinbefore and imposed minor penalty of withholding of an increment of pay, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting the petitioner's pension.

4. Aggrieved by the penalty, so imposed, the petitioner preferred an appeal. As the appeal did not yield any favourable result, the petitioner filed an application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which gave rise to the OA No. 198/2009.

5. By order, dated 10.6.2010, passed, in OA No. 198/2009, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the learned Tribunal, having found no merit in the application, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order, dated 10.6.2010, aforementioned, passed by the learned Tribunal, present writ application has been made, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner putting to challenge the impugned order, dated 10.6.2010, passed by the learned Tribunal and also seeking to get set aside and quashed, inter alia, the impugned order imposing penalty on the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove as well as the orders, dated 28/31/7/2009 and 14.2.2008, passed by the appellate authority.

6. In order to appreciate the merit of this writ petition, we reproduce herein-below the Charge Nos. III, IV and V, as contained in the Article of Charges, which had been served on the petitioner and the findings of the enquiring authority, on the said charges, wit reasons assigned therefor:

Statement of Article-III of Charge

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Budheswar Doley, ITO acted arbitrarily in the assessment of Shri Puma Kanta Pegu (assessee) for the AY 1995-96 as is evidenced from the assessment records; acts of misconduct of which are listed hereunder.

1. The assessment proceeding has been initiated after the survey report of the Inspector dated 16-6-95. The survey so authorized was illegal as the power to survey U/s. 133A or 133B can be exercised only at a place at which for business or profession is carried on; whereas in these instance case the assessee is only a salaried person.

This act confirms the allegations in other complaints received that Shri Budheswar Doley, I