2023 (12) TMI 426 - HC - Indian Laws

Allegation of Misconduct against the petitioner acting as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / CIT(A) - officials exercising quasi-judicial functions - exemption from disciplinary proceedings - exercise of power of judicial review akin to adjudicating an appeal arising out of an impugned decision - disciplinary proceedings are at the final stage - HELD THAT - In ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1999 (8) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court was concerned with a case wherein the appellant while working as a Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur was issued a memorandum with allegations that he favoured the assessee therein, by not imposing penalty on it under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944, when he passed the order in Original No. 20/95 on March 2, 1995, despite holding that the assessee had clandestinely manufactured and cleared the excisable goods wilfully and evaded the excise duty and had ordered confiscation of the goods. After considering UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS KK. DHAWAN 1993 (1) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT and various other judgments, the Supreme Court was of the view that merely because the penalty imposable was not imposed, it cannot be said that by not levying penalty, the appellant has favoured the assessee or shown undue favour to him. It was also held that if every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officer like the appellant therein. It further held that to maintain a charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial authority, something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of that sort was alleged against the appellant therein, the impugned chargesheet was rendered illegal / quashed. The Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar has held that the negligence in case of quasi-judicial adjudication is not perceived as carelessness, inadvertence or omission, but as culpable negligence. In other words, if the view of the competent authority, is that the impugned order passed by an officer reveals culpable negligence while discharging quasi-judicial function, then such a conduct can be made subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. But, whether culpable negligence shall sustain, is a matter of evidence to be produced and considered by the disciplinary authority. The UPSC advice has also come. The petitioner has been given a copy of the UPSC advice and Inquiry Report. She has also submitted her representation on the Inquiry Report. If that be so, the proceedings are at the final stage. Unfortunately, neither the copy of the report of the inquiry officer nor the UPSC advice and the representation made by the petitioner, have been placed on the record of this Court for the reasons best known. Surely, the petitioner in her representation may have taken the jurisdictional pleas as urged by Dr. Kothari in this petition on the Charge Memorandum - this Court instead of deciding the pleas itself, the disciplinary authority should first consider the same by keeping in view, the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts, along with criteria laid down by CVC vide its Circular dated October 24, 2016, without being influenced by any conclusion drawn by us in this judgment and pass a final order. If the disciplinary authority agrees with the pleas of Dr. Kothari/petitioner, then it shall close the proceedings. But if the disciplinary authority is of the view that the Charge Memorandum has been rightly issued, the disciplinary authority shall pass a reasoned order in the manner directed by us in that regard, so also on the Inquiry report. By not interfering with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the writ petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer.
2. Jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority.
3. Merits of the Charge Memorandum.
4. Judicial review limitations in disciplinary proceedings.

Summary:

Legality of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, arguing that the charges pertained to her quasi-judicial functions as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur. The Tribunal dismissed the challenge, referencing the Supreme Court's settled position that a chargesheet or show cause notice does not ordinarily give rise to a cause of action unless issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction or competence.

Jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority:
The petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Charge Memorandum as the charges did not amount to misconduct. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority failed to comply with the CVC Circular No. 12/10/2016, which requires demonstrating wanton breach of law or procedure, extraneous considerations, or dishonest exercise of judicial power before initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal did not find merit in this challenge.

Merits of the Charge Memorandum:
The Articles of Charge against the petitioner included allegations of allowing unsubstantiated claims and granting reliefs without proper verification, which were argued to be mere errors in judgment rather than misconduct. The petitioner emphasized that her order was subsequently upheld by the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the inquiry had been completed, and the petitioner had the opportunity to present her case, thus finding no merit in quashing the Charge Memorandum.

Judicial Review Limitations:
The Tribunal highlighted the limitations of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, stating that such review is not akin to adjudicating an appeal but is limited to examining the manner in which the decision was made. The Tribunal found no infirmity or illegality in the disciplinary proceedings, given that the inquiry was at its final stage and the petitioner had already submitted her representation on the Inquiry Report.

Analysis:
The Court referred to several precedents, including K.K. Dhawan, Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, and R.K. Desai, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings against quasi-judicial officers can be initiated for culpable negligence or misconduct but not for mere errors in judgment. The Court noted that the charges against the petitioner suggested culpable negligence rather than mere carelessness. However, the Court directed the disciplinary authority to consider the petitioner's jurisdictional pleas and pass a reasoned order based on the law and CVC guidelines.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the disciplinary authority to consider the petitioner's representation and jurisdictional challenges before passing a final order. The interim order was vacated, and the application was dismissed.