CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 22^nd day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Six CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER B. Prasath Kumar, Office Superintendent of Income Tax, O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax (DR), ITAT II Floor, B Block, D wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis Vs

1. Union of India rep by The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Principal Chief commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (DR) -2, ITAT, II Floor, B Block, D wing, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. V. Vijay Shankar

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA seeking the following relief:

“to call for the records related to impugned orders videCon. No.1/CIT-DR- 2/ITAT/DP/SO/2024-25 dated 12.12.2024, passed by the 3^rd respondent and to quash the same and revoke the applicant allow him to join duty in non-sensitive post and further to direct the respondents to do the necessary to clear the arrears of subsistence allowance from the date of completion of ninety days from the date of suspension and to extend all the benefits to the applicant with consequential benefits.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The applicant was appointed as a Tax Assistant on 18.08.2011 under the Sports Quota and was subsequently promoted to the post of Office Superintendent of Income Tax in the year 2019 on a substantive basis. While working in that capacity, the applicant was placed under suspension on 11.02.2020 in connection with alleged offences committed during the discharge of his duties as Senior Tax Assistant/Office Superintendent in Central Range-I, Chennai, pursuant to a pending criminal investigation by the CBI. From 2020 to 2023, the applicant submitted a series of representations to the authorities seeking revocation of the suspension and enhancement of the subsistence allowance. However, these representations were not considered, and the suspension was repeatedly extended. The authorities also declined to enhance the subsistence allowance and continued to maintain it at 50% of the last drawn pay from the year 2020. Aggrieved by this inaction, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.1023 of 2024. By order, dated 07.08.2024, this Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the applicant’s representation within a period of three months by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondents rejected the applicant’s claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to

75%. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Office Memorandum No.11012/17/2013- Estt(A) dated 02.01.2014 categorically mandates enhancement of subsistence allowance. He also drew attention to Fundamental Rule 53 and submitted that enhancement is required where the delay in disciplinary proceedings is not directly attributable to the employee. It was further contended that if the delay is caused by the administration, the subsistence allowance must be enhanced irrespective of the gravity of the charges.

4. In the present case, only a show-cause notice has been issued, and no charge memorandum has been served upon the applicant to date. Therefore, the question of delay attributable to the applicant does not arise.

The sole ground raised by the respondents in their reply statement is the alleged gravity of the charges. The learned counsel cited various judicial precedents to submit that the seriousness of charges against a suspended employee is not a valid ground for refusing enhancement of subsistence allowance. The respondents are obligated to periodically review the suspension and enhance the allowance in accordan