CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00012/2022 ORDER RESERVED ON 06.11.2025 DATE OF ORDER: 02.01.2026 HON’BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Shaik Abdul Fazululla (Civil List No.07574), Aged 61 years Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Retd.)

Flat # G1, Sai Surya Residency Road # 7, Telecom Nagaar, Gachibowli Hyderabad – 32. …..Applicant (By Advocate: Sri R.Mahanty)

Vs.

1. The Hon’ble President of India &

Disciplinary Authority Rep. by its Secretary, M/o Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi.

2. Union of India, Rep. by its Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes North Block, New Delhi.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Towers Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 4.

4. The Principal Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance)

J.N.Stadium, New Delhi.

5. Smt.Divya K J, Inquiry Officer & Addl., Commissioner of Income Tax, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax C R Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore-1. ….Respondents (By Advocate: Smt. K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)

******

O R D E R PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

a. Call for the records relating to the impugned order dated

20.12.2021 & 17.12.2020 and set aside the same as it is not a speaking order.

b. To direct the Disciplinary Authority to issue the speaking order on the basis of the objections raised in the biased petition dated 24.05.2021 and 18.03.2021 and stay the inquiry proceedings until further orders and c. To direct to replace the Inquiry Officer with another officer who is acquainted with Central Civil Service Rules as the present IO is not acting in accordance with procedural rules of CCS (CCA)

Rules as the IO has no knowledge of CCS (CCA) Rules.

d. To direct to conduct the denova inquiry by set aside the order of PO & IO for calling explanation from the CO and Pass such further order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and oblige.”

2. Interlocutory orders, dt.14.11.2024, by the Tribunal have been the cause of WP.No.33395 of 2024, in which the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana has ordered, on 28.11.2024, as follows :

“This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 14.11.2024, passed in O.A.No.12 of 2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein, the Tribunal has permitted the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings.

x x x

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that while he was working as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax at Tirupathi, the Disciplinary Authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him alleging that he had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as bribe and Rs.3,00,000/- was found in his desk. A charge memo dated 28.06.2016 was issued. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have compulsorily retired the petitioner under Article 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules, on

27.09.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the Enquiry Officer had conducted enquiry in a biased manner and thus, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.12 of 2022. The Tribunal was pleased to pass interlocutory order on 22.06.2022 stating that enquiry may go on, however, final orders have to be passed after obtaining necessary permission from the Tribunal. The Enquiry Officer has submitted an Enquiry Report in biased manner and thus, the petitioner has filed miscellaneous application i.e., M.A.No.659 of 2024 for early disposal of the O.A. However, instead of deciding the main O.A., the Tribunal permitted the respondents to pass final orders. He had further contended that if the disciplinary proceeding are concluded, the O.A., itself will become infructuous. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have adju