Under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, an authority competent to impose minor penalties is legally empowered to institute disciplinary proceedings, regardless of whether it lacks the authority to impose major penalties, and delays in initiation are not grounds for quashing unless prejudice is proven.

ORDER (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (J):

We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsels for the respondents.

2. The facts shorn of details can be adumberated thus:

The applicant had been issued charge sheet on 29.06.2018 (Annexure A-1) levelling the following charges:

“Shri Ravi Tulsiyan of M/s. S.K. Tulsiyan & Co. had appeared before Shri Vinay Kumar the then CIT(A) XXIV, Kolkata, for the Appellant in all these cases. The said retrieved draft orders were all created in the computer of M/s. S.K. Tulsiyan and Co. on dates which were prior to the dates of order of CIT(A) in these cases. The orders of Shri Vinay Kumar were strikingly similar to the retrieved documents in all these cases. Moreover, in the case of Shri Rajesh Singhi, it was seen that some of the details such as details of loans and advances were appearing in the “retrieved documents but not available in any of the documents available in the appeal folder viz. the written submission, statement of facts and assessment order were incorporated into the appellate order. Reference was also made in the retrieved document and the appellant order to copies of statements and confirmation filed, even though no such documents are found in the appeal folder.”

2.1. The applicant who was working as Principal Income Tax Commissioner, on the date of issuance of charge sheet, has challenged this Memorandum on two grounds:

(i)) that there is delay of 11 years and

(ii) The charge sheet is not approved by the President of India, the applicant being a Group A officer.

On these two grounds the applicant has challenged the charge sheet dated 29.06.2018.

3. The respondents filed their written statement. With regard to delay, Respondents have stated in para 4 of their written statement, denying that the matter is 18 years old. The same is reproduced as under for clarity:

“4. … It is denied that the matter is 18 years old. A matter pertaining to the orders passed by the applicant from October 2007 to December 2007, on the face of it cannot be 18 years old. The matter was investigated by the CBI till 2014. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant is misleading the Court by making false submissions that the charge memorandum is not legible. It is evident from the photocopy of the charge memorandum, which the applicant has enclosed as Annexure A-1 in his O.A, that the charge memorandum is legible. He submits that the original charge memorandum from the applicant may be summoned for verification of submissions made by him.”

4. Ms. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondents/Disciplinary Authority did not obtain approval from the President of India before filing of the charge sheet. The applicant being a Group-A officer, charge sheet has to be approved by the President of India. On this ground alone, the charge sheet needs to be set aside.

4.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents have produced an office order dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure R-1), regarding the allocation of work to Minister of State in Ministry of Finance. She submits that even if this is accepted to be the allocation of work, there is nothing on record to show that the charge sheet against the applicant was approved by the Minister of State in Finance Ministry. She submits that in any case, there was no sanction from the President of India or the State Finance Minister, therefore, the charge sheet must go.

4.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is a delay of 11 years in filing the charge sheet. No explanation is forthcoming from the respondents