Mere errors in quasi-judicial functions of Assessing Officer do not constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings absent mala fides, recklessness or corruption.

O R D E R

Per Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)

1.In the instant O.A., the applicant being aggrieved with the Charge Memorandum dated 12.12.2022 (Annex.A/1) and the orders appointing inquiring officer and the presenting officer dated 05.06.2023, passed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Disciplinary authority, has filed the present O.A. under 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, seeking the following reliefs :-

“(A) call upon the official respondents herein to forthwith place before this Hon’ble Tribunal, in original, all the relevant and material documents,which gave rise to the issuance of the impugned documents at Annexure A/1 to AnnexureA/3 hereto;

(B) upon a close perusal and scrutiny of the aforesaid original documents, this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to;

(B-1) quash and set aside the impugned Charge Memorandum bearing No.CIT (Audit) /ABD/ 2022-23 /526 dated 12.12.2022 at Annexure A/1 hereto issued by the respondent no. 3 herein holding and declaring the same to have been issued / passed by the respondent no. 3 herein in mala fide exercise of his powers as the disciplinary authority and in total violation of the statutory provisions contained in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;

(B-2) quash and set aside the aforesaid two impugned orders bearing No. CIT/Audit / / Inquiry Officer / AKP / 2023-24 at Annexure – A/2 hereto and the Order No. CIT / Audit / / Presenting Officer / AKP / 2023-24, both dated 05.06.2023 at Annexure A/3 hereto, holding and declaring the same to have been issued / passed by the respondent no. 3 herein without any competence or power or authority with a mala fide motive and intention on the respondent no. 3 herein and also in total violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965;

(C) grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1 The applicant had joined the services of the Department of Income Tax as Income Tax Inspector, Jamnagar. During April 2021, on his request, he was transferred to NIMHR, Sehore, MP on deputation as an Administrative Officer.

2.2 After lapse of about five years, while serving in NIMHER, an order dated 30.12.2021 issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (Vig.), Western Region, Mumbai, was issued informing therein that on vigilance inspection of his work as ITO, Ward-3, Vapi, during 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, various shortcomings, omissions/commissions and procedural lapses were noticed and he was called upon to submit his version on the findings of the vigilance inspection of the work done by him while being posted as ITO, ward-3, Vapi.

2.3 On receipt of the said letter 30.12.2021, he submitted his detailed reply/explanation to the CIT (OSD), I/C Additional DIT (Vig), Mumbai. Since there was no further communication from the Vigilance Cell, Mumbai, he had a bona fide belief that the detailed explanation which was furnished by him to the Vigilance Wing was to the satisfaction of that authority and that the said matter stood closed.

2.4 However, in the month of January 2023 while the applicant was on deputation at NIMHR, he was served with a major penalty Charge Memorandum under dated 12.12.2022 (Annex.A/1) issued by the respondent No. 3, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein, it has been alleged that while he was working as ITO Ward Nos. 3 & 7 at Vapi during August 2014 to May 2017, faile