1. Disciplinary charge against Income Tax Officer for alleged procedural lapses in assessment work while discharging quasi-judicial functions. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2649
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member, Hukum Singh Meena, Administrative Member
Anand Kishore Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.221/2023
Important Points
Mere errors in quasi-judicial functions of Assessing Officer do not constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings absent mala fides, recklessness or corruption.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Administrative Tribunals Act: S.19
CCS (CCA) Rules: R.14
Income Tax Act: S.2(7A), S.119, S.193, S.263, S.147, S.154, S.293
Judges Protection Act
Constitution of India: Art.235
CCS (CCA) Rules: R.14
Income Tax Act: S.2(7A), S.119, S.193, S.263, S.147, S.154, S.293
Judges Protection Act
Constitution of India: Art.235
Headnote
(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 2(7A) - Disciplinary proceedings against Assessing Officer - Allegations of procedural lapses in maintaining assessment records and lack of due diligence in assessments during 2014-2017 - Held, Assessing Officer functions as quasi-judicial authority - Mere errors in quasi-judicial decisions, without allegations of mala fides, recklessness, corruption or extraneous considerations, do not constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action - Charge memorandum quashed as foundation vitiated; subsequent proceedings fall by legal maxim 'sublato fundamento cadit opus'. Manual of Office Procedure not binding on quasi-judicial functions. Protection under relevant statutory provisions applicable. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 12.1, 12.2, 13)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope in disciplinary matters - Limited to patent illegality, perversity, violation of rules or natural justice - Not to re-appreciate evidence or substitute views unless findings based on no evidence or irrational. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, an Income Tax Officer, challenged charge memorandum issued under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules for alleged misconduct in assessments as Assessing Officer during 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, including failure to maintain records per manual and inadequate inquiries on assessee claims. Vigilance inspection noted lapses; applicant denied charges, citing quasi-judicial role, submitted replies without full records access, yet proceedings advanced to appointing inquiring and presenting officers.
Findings of Court:
Charges relate solely to quasi-judicial functions; no proof of bribery, malice or undue favour. Errors appealable, not misconduct. Proceedings initiated on vigilance report but lack sustainable basis.
Issues: Whether acts as Assessing Officer constitute misconduct; sustainability of disciplinary proceedings absent mala fides; applicability of quasi-judicial immunity.
Ratio Decidendi: Erroneous quasi-judicial orders cannot ground disciplinary action unless evidencing lack of integrity, recklessness or corruption; departmental challenge to judicial decisions undermines independence - must show conduct beyond mere error.
Result: Original Application allowed; charge memorandum and subsequent orders quashed and set aside.
(B) Judicial Review - Scope in disciplinary matters - Limited to patent illegality, perversity, violation of rules or natural justice - Not to re-appreciate evidence or substitute views unless findings based on no evidence or irrational. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, an Income Tax Officer, challenged charge memorandum issued under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules for alleged misconduct in assessments as Assessing Officer during 26.08.2014 to 31.05.2017, including failure to maintain records per manual and inadequate inquiries on assessee claims. Vigilance inspection noted lapses; applicant denied charges, citing quasi-judicial role, submitted replies without full records access, yet proceedings advanced to appointing inquiring and presenting officers.
Findings of Court:
Charges relate solely to quasi-judicial functions; no proof of bribery, malice or undue favour. Errors appealable, not misconduct. Proceedings initiated on vigilance report but lack sustainable basis.
Issues: Whether acts as Assessing Officer constitute misconduct; sustainability of disciplinary proceedings absent mala fides; applicability of quasi-judicial immunity.
Ratio Decidendi: Erroneous quasi-judicial orders cannot ground disciplinary action unless evidencing lack of integrity, recklessness or corruption; departmental challenge to judicial decisions undermines independence - must show conduct beyond mere error.
Result: Original Application allowed; charge memorandum and subsequent orders quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S.Rao
For the Respondents: Chirayu Mehta
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S.Rao
For the Respondents: Chirayu Mehta
Table of Contents
2. Applicant argues quasi-judicial protection and no misconduct; respondents defend charge memo validity and natural justice compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Impugned charge memorandum quashed and set aside; interim order made absolute; no costs awarded. (Para 13 , 14 )
4. Whether an assessing officer discharging quasi-judicial functions can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for alleged procedural lapses in assessment decisions?
No. Erroneous decisions or procedural irregularities in quasi-judicial acts do not constitute misconduct unless accompanied by mala fide, recklessness, or extraneous considerations. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Whether unexplained inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings vitiates the proceedings?
Yes. Unexplained delay causes serious prejudice and makes the proceedings bad in law. (Para 3 , 11 )
6. Whether the maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus applies when the charge memo is quashed?
Yes. When the foundation charge memo is quashed, all subsequent orders and acts taken in pursuance thereof fall flat. (Para 3 , 12 )
7. Whether a mere error of law or fact in a quasi-judicial decision can form the basis of misconduct proceedings?
No. A mere error of fact or law cannot be the basis of commencing proceedings against a quasi-judicial authority. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Whether assessing officers are protected under the Judges Protection Act and Section 293 of the Income Tax Act?
Yes. Assessing officers exercising quasi-judicial functions are protected from legal proceedings for decisions taken in good faith. (Para 10 , 12 )
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, failed to main assessment records and the proceedings as prescribed under the Manual of Office Procedure and notings made by him do not meet the criteria as per Para 3.4.5 (Chapter-II) of the Manual of Office Procedure, Vol. II and further alleged that he had completed the assessment of the several assesses without due diligence by not making proper inquiries on the issues of cash deposits and their other account details and thus failed to bring their correct taxable income.
2.5 On receipt of the said Charge Memorandum d
