1. Challenge to charge memorandum and appointment of inquiry officer in departmental proceedings against an income tax officer. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2650
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, J, Hukum Singh Meena, Administrative Member
Lalu Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.372/2022
Important Points
Disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial authority cannot be initiated based on errors of law or fact in their decisions unless there is evidence of mala fide intent, recklessness, or corruption, as such decisions are subject to appellate review rather than administrative disciplinary action.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985: S.19
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: R.14
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964: R.3
Income Tax Act, 1961: S.2(7A), S.119, S.263, S.147, S.154, S.193, S.145(3)
Judges Protection Act, 1985
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: R.14
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964: R.3
Income Tax Act, 1961: S.2(7A), S.119, S.263, S.147, S.154, S.193, S.145(3)
Judges Protection Act, 1985
Headnote
(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14; CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 2(7A) and Section 293; Judges Protection Act, 1985 - Protection of quasi-judicial authorities - Disciplinary proceedings initiated for alleged failure to maintain records and lack of due diligence in assessments - Whether such acts constitute misconduct if performed in a quasi-judicial capacity - Errors of law or fact in discharging quasi-judicial functions do not amount to misconduct unless accompanied by mala fide, recklessness, or corrupt motive (Paras 11.4, 12.1).
(B) Judicial Review - Scope and ambit - Tribunal does not function as an appellate forum over departmental proceedings - Interference warranted only where findings are based on no evidence, perverse, irrational, or legally untenable (Para 10).
(C) Legal Maxim - “Sublato fundamento cadit opus” - When the foundation for initiating disciplinary proceedings is vitiated, all subsequent acts and orders based on such foundation fall flat (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
An officer serving as an assessing authority was issued a charge memorandum alleging failure to maintain records according to the prescribed Manual of Office Procedure and lack of due diligence in assessments for specific financial years. The officer challenged the memorandum, contending that the duties were performed in a quasi-judicial capacity and that the proceedings were initiated with malicious intent and based on the merits of the decisions rather than actual misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the officer exercised statutory powers as a quasi-judicial authority. It held that the charges were based on the correctness of the decisions rather than the conduct of the officer. In the absence of allegations of bribery, corrupt motives, or personal gain, mere errors of judgment or procedural lapses in quasi-judicial acts cannot be treated as disciplinary misconduct.
Issues: Whether the alleged procedural irregularities and erroneous decisions in assessments made by an officer acting as a quasi-judicial authority constitute misconduct under the applicable conduct rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Erroneous exercise of quasi-judicial power, whether based on a mistake of law or fact, does not constitute misconduct unless it is accompanied by mala fide intent, recklessness, or extraneous considerations. Since the charges related purely to the merits of the assessments, which are subject to appellate review, the foundation of the disciplinary action was unsustainable.
Result: O.A. allowed and the Charge Memorandum quashed and set aside.
(B) Judicial Review - Scope and ambit - Tribunal does not function as an appellate forum over departmental proceedings - Interference warranted only where findings are based on no evidence, perverse, irrational, or legally untenable (Para 10).
(C) Legal Maxim - “Sublato fundamento cadit opus” - When the foundation for initiating disciplinary proceedings is vitiated, all subsequent acts and orders based on such foundation fall flat (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
An officer serving as an assessing authority was issued a charge memorandum alleging failure to maintain records according to the prescribed Manual of Office Procedure and lack of due diligence in assessments for specific financial years. The officer challenged the memorandum, contending that the duties were performed in a quasi-judicial capacity and that the proceedings were initiated with malicious intent and based on the merits of the decisions rather than actual misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the officer exercised statutory powers as a quasi-judicial authority. It held that the charges were based on the correctness of the decisions rather than the conduct of the officer. In the absence of allegations of bribery, corrupt motives, or personal gain, mere errors of judgment or procedural lapses in quasi-judicial acts cannot be treated as disciplinary misconduct.
Issues: Whether the alleged procedural irregularities and erroneous decisions in assessments made by an officer acting as a quasi-judicial authority constitute misconduct under the applicable conduct rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Erroneous exercise of quasi-judicial power, whether based on a mistake of law or fact, does not constitute misconduct unless it is accompanied by mala fide intent, recklessness, or extraneous considerations. Since the charges related purely to the merits of the assessments, which are subject to appellate review, the foundation of the disciplinary action was unsustainable.
Result: O.A. allowed and the Charge Memorandum quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
-
service law
-
conduct rules
-
ccs (conduct) rules, 1964
- rule 3
-
ccs (cca) rules, 1965
- rule 14
-
ccs (conduct) rules, 1964
-
conduct rules
-
tax law
-
income tax act, 1961
-
assessing officer
- quasi-judicial authority
- section 119
- section 293
-
assessing officer
-
income tax act, 1961
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. Assessing officer discharges quasi-judicial functions; erroneous decisions absent mala fides do not constitute misconduct. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Original application allowed; impugned charge memorandum quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. (Para 13 , 14 )
4. Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a quasi-judicial authority for errors in decisions?
No, unless there is an allegation of mala fides, recklessness, corrupt motive, or extraneous considerations. (Para 12 )
5. What is the standard for judicial review of departmental proceedings?
Courts examine the decision-making process and interfere only for patent illegality, perversity, violation of rules, or breach of natural justice. (Para 7 )
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH Original Application No.372/2022
Ahmedabad, this the 10 day of February 2026 CORAM : Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (Administrative) Lalu Prasad Yadav S/o Sh. Lakhendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 42 years, presently serving as Income Tax Officer in AU-113, Vadodara,under Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara, Address for communication : No.E/203,Shiv Vatika, Near Sabri School, Vasna Road, Vadodara — 390 007. seeees Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.S.Rao) Ahmedabad Versus
1. Union of India notice to be served through its Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,Government of India, North Block, New Delhi — 110 001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes to be represented through its Chairman CBDT, North Block, New Delhi — 110 001.
3. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, IRS, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
(ReFAC)(AU-1), Vadodara, (Disciplinary Authority) Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 2" Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,Race Course Circle, Vadodara — 390 007.
JTENDR ESS
4. Shri Suraj Bhan Garhwal, IRS, Jt.CIT (ReFAC) (RU)-I(3), Vadodara, (Inquiring Authority) Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Aayakar Bhavan,Race Course Circle, Vadodara — 390 007.
5. Shri Ravish Bhatt, IRS, Jt.CIT (ReFAC)(AU)-I(3), Vadodara(Bharuch) (Presenting Officer) Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara — 390 007.
6. Shri Satbir Singh, IRS (Retd.) (former Pr.CIT, Valsad), C/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (ReFAC)(AU-D, Vadodara, Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, gud Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390 007. ceeeees Respondents (By Advocate:Mr.Chirayu Mehta)
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J) Ahmedabad
In the instant O.A., the applicant being aggrieved with the Charge Memorandum dated 04.03.2022 (Annex.A/1) and an order dated 07.09.2022, whereby, the disciplinary authority an appointed Inquiry Authority / Officer to inquire into the alleged charges levelled against the applicant in the charge memo and the order of appointment of Presenting Officer (Annexs. A/2 & A/3), has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 seeking 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/I to Annexure A/3 hereto;
(B) uponaclose perusal and scrutiny of the aforesaid original documents, this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to:
(B-1) quash and set aside the (i) impugned Charge Memorandum bearing No.BRD/Pr.CIT (ReFAC) (AU)-1/Vig.Insp./LPY/2021-22 dated wreson 04.03.2022 at Annexure A/I hereto issued by the respondent no. 3
wre herein and also (ii) the impugned Orders both bearing No.
BRD/Pr.CIT(AU0-1/IO&PO/2022-23 both dated 07.09.2022 at Annexure — A/2 and Annexure A/3 hereto, 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.
(C) grant such other & 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 It is stated that while the applicant working as a Income Tax Officer, ReFAC (AU)-1(1)(3), Vadodara, has been served with a Charge Memo dated 04.03.2022 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 wherein, as per Article-I of the Charge Memo, it is alleged against him that during the Financial Years 2014-2015, 2016-2017, while he was posted as IT
