C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 12.10.2010 Union of India and others ....Petitioners VERSUS R.L. Chhanalia and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M. M. KUMAR J. 1. The Union of India has challenged the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) holding that the allegations leveled against the applicant-respondent were in respect of assessment made by him in his capacity as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax long years ago C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and that too in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that all such orders were appealable and which were in fact upheld when the appeals were filed. Moreover, the charges have already been inquired into by the petitioners in a regu- lar departmental inquiry wherein the applicant-respondent had been exonerated. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 20.2.2008 was quashed. The views of the Tribunal are discernible from Paras No.15 & 16 of its order which reads as under:- “15. The other plea taken by the applicant that he was never shown draft assessment order by the assessing officer has no validity because if he wanted that the assessment or- der be shown to him, he could have directed the assessing officer to do so while giving his approval to the general liens on which as- sessment in the scrutiny was to be prepared by assessing authority. 16. Since, we hold that misdemeanor alleged against him in the charge sheet does not re- late to discharging of his duties in a quasi-ju- dicial capacity, the decision in the case of Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar (supra) is not appli- cable in the present case. Similarly, the ratio of the decision of this Bench in CAT in the case of R.D. Gupta (supra) is not applicable in this case for the simple reasons that the applicant in that case had been charged with the acts of omission and commission in the C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -3- course of discharging his functions as DCIT (Appeals) while applicant in present OA was required as supervisory officer to perform the limited functions of assessing the finalization of assessment by the assessing officer in a case taken for scrutiny.” 2. It is appropriate to mention that a charge-sheet was is- sued to the applicant-respondent on 5.2.2004 alleging that he ac- corded Administrative approval for finalization of assessment with re- gard to three assesses with undue haste and without making neces- sary inquiry and proper investigation. The other charge was that he did not impose penalty on a Wine Trader, Karnal for assessment year 1996-97. Accordingly, the departmental inquiry was initiated against him which was challenged before the Tribunal alongwith the charge-sheet. The original application No.653-CH of 2004 was dis- missed on 14.11.2005. However by the time the applicant-respon- dent filed CWP No.5205-CAT of 2006 and challenged the order of the Tribunal before this Court, the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report exonerating him of both the charges principally on the ground that the applicant-respondent had acted in discharge of his quasi-ju- dicial function. Accordingly, the writ petition filed before this Court was withdrawn and this Court issued a direction to the petitioners to take final decision on the inquiry report. The petitioner considered the inquiry report and the disciplinary authority ordered initiation of fresh proceedings on the pretext that there was flaw in the procedure C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -4- for holding of inquiry inasmuch as Rule 14(17) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was not followed. According to the aforesaid rule the Controlling Authority of the Government servant who is assisting a delinquent official in the inquiry has to be intimated about the fact, which was not done. In other words, the defence assistant can be engaged by the delinquent official who might be an officer from the department and such a de- fence assistant has to intimate his Controlling Authority. The new in- quiry officer again exonerated him of both the charges as per the in- quiry report dated 21.11.2008. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the inquiry report and vide disagreement note dated 2.2.2009 the applicant-respondent was exonerated of one charge and was found guilty for the other. 3. The applicant-respondent replied to the show cause no- tice and the disciplinary authority forwarded his case to CVC/UPSC for advice proposing imposition of penalty of Rs.10,00,000/-. How- ever, CVC/UPSC advised the imposition of major penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with a further direction that he would not earn any increment of pay during the currency of the punishment, but this would not have the effect of postponement of future increments. 4. However, the second charge-sheet dated 20.2.2008 was again served upon the applicant-respondent with the allegation that C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -5- he had displayed undue haste and made assessments in a casual manner, without making proper investigation. As a result, he con- ferred undue benefit on the assessee in 33 cases pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91 to 1995-96. 5. The Tribunal has taken the view that raking up old mat- ters which are 13 to 17 years old would prejudice the applicant-re- spondent. The question with regard to framing of charge-sheet after long years came up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh, 1990 (Supplementary) S.C.C. 738. In that case, the irregularities which were subject matter of inquiry had taken place between the year 1975-77 and the departmental proceedings were initiated in the year 1987-after 12 years. The department was aware of such irregu- larities and had doubted about the antecedents of the officer in that case. However, no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in the issuance of charge-sheet was furnished. It is in the aforesaid cir- cumstances that Hon’ble the Supreme Court held “that it will be un- fair to permit the departmental inquiry to be proceeded at this stage”. 6. The view propounded in Bani Singh’s case (supra) has been approved with a further qualification that delay alone should not constitute the basis for quashing a charge-sheet. In that regard, reli- ance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of V. Padmana Bhan v. Government of C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -6- Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 15 S.C.C. 537 and M.V. Vijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 S.C.C. 88. 7. The stand of the petitioner in the instant case is that the Courts should not like interfere at the initial stage of disciplinary pro- ceedings when the charge-sheet has been issued. 8. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that in the present case, disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated for the alleged delinquency just once, but such proceedings have been kept pending in one way or the other. In the present case, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the charges leveled against the appli- cant-respondent have already been included in the earlier proceed- ings. According to the Tribunal, raking up such like charges time and again in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay would vitiate the charge-sheet. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not merit inter- ference by this Court. It is true that any act in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power may also be subjected to a departmental in- quiry because if any officer is negligent in discharging of his function or act on extraneous consideration then disciplinary action could be taken and it is no defence that the delinquent was discharging quasi- judicial function. That law is settled by various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Union of India v. K.K. C.W.P. No.18563 of 2010 (O&M) -7- Dhawan, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 56 and Union of India v. Duli Chand, (2006) 5 S.C.C. 680. But all the same, the facts of each case have to be examined. In the present case, the applicant-respondent faced inquiries twice over and the inquiry officer exonerated him. The disci- plinary authority preferred to disagree with the inquiry officer on one charge and has punished the applicant-respondent. It is during that period that another charge-sheet has been issued leveling allega- tions which are 13-17 years old and were part of earlier charge- sheet. Moreover, there is no satisfactory explanation of such inordi- nate delay. We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tri- bunal and would like to apply the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Bani Singh’s case (supra). 10. Accordingly, the writ petition does not warrant admission and is thus dismissed. ( M. M. Kumar ) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) October 12, 2010 Judge ashish