ORDER

By Hon’ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (Judicial) :

The applicant is aggrieved by the charge sheet dated 02.05.2008 issued to him for major penalty proceedings.

2. The Applicant is seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To set aside the memorandum of charges dated 2.5.2008 for major penalty which has been served upon the applicant with covering letter dated 28.5.2008.

(ii) An order in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding with the departmental disciplinary proceedings on the basis of memorandum of charge sheet dated 2.5.2008.

(iii) An order or direction to the respondents to issue vigilance clearance to the applicant to get his retirement from the service with all benefits.

(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) Award cost of the application to the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant who belongs to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) was appointed in the year 1981 and superannuated on 30.11.2008. On 29.05.2008 the applicant was served with a memorandum dated 02.05.2008 intimating that the President has proposed to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 CCS Rules 1965 against the applicant for certain alleged irregularities committed by him covered by Section 3(1)(b), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Salem, Tamilnadu from June 1995 to 1997. The copy of CVC advice was also provided. The substance of the charge sheet reads as under:-

“12. That the substances of charges is, while working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Salem, he made the „prima facie‟ adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act 1961 which are beyond the scope of the section.

Such prima facie adjustments were made in 1995-96 also and hence the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant under sub Section of (i), (ii), (iii) of Section 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

4. The applicant filed present OA against the charge sheet. This Tribunal stayed the charge sheet vide order dated 14.11.2008.

Therefore, the charge sheet could not be proceeded, further.

5. The respondents have filed their counter reply wherein they have specifically stated that the charge memo issued to the applicant was in accordance with laid down rules after following due process of law. The entire procedure is so devised so as to ensure full and fair opportunity to the applicant at various stages of the proceedings. Therefore, the interference of this Tribunal was at a premature stage. The basis on which the charge memo was issued was enumerated in the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of charge. All the facts and circumstances leading to the charge sheet have been brought out to the notice of the disciplinary authority. The inquiry was initiated only after certain complaints were received followed by the vigilance inspection of the work done by the applicant while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Salem. It is only after thorough application of mind by the competent authority, the said charge memo was issued.

6. Heard Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents available on record.

7. When the matter was heard on 17.11.2021, learned counsel for the applicant has confined his arguments only on two grounds:-

(i) That the charges for which the applicant has been proceeded against are related to discharge of his duties in quasi judicial proceedings, therefore, he could not be charged for the same. In support of which he has cited two judgments annexed with his rejoi