9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 621 - HC - Income TaxCharges against Income Tax Officer (ITO) and Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) - accumulation of wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of 285% - independent approval of the Disciplinary Authority - disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2006 - as argued there is no application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority (in the year 2003) as it was a general direction for issuance of charge sheets to many officers HELD THAT - Disciplinary Authority has to approve the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the officer, approve the charge memo and appoint Inquiry Officer / Presenting Officer. In the present case, as noted from the above, the mandate of the Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath 2009 (7) TMI 1384 - DELHI HIGH COURT has been duly complied with by the respondents. Competent Authority has directed the issuance of charge sheet in terms of the approval given for initiating major penalty proceedings on December 1, 2005. The Competent Authority has also approved the Charge Memo under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, and had also accorded the appointment of Inquiry Officer / Presenting Officer, if required, in the course of departmental proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner. The decisions of the Finance Minister approving the issuance of memorandum under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 were with a clear application of mind. So, in that sense the approvals were in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in CHAIRMAN-CUM-M. D., COAL INDIA LTD. 2011 (4) TMI 1216 - SUPREME COURT . No merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the charge memo issued to the petitioner. 2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in B.V. Gopinath. 3. Application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the charge memo issued to the petitioner: The petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated July 6, 2021, which dismissed his Original Application (OA No. 624/2015) and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner, an Income Tax Officer, was issued a charge memo on December 1, 2006, alleging disproportionate accumulation of wealth. The initial charge memo was set aside in 2011, but a fresh charge memo was issued on August 28, 2014, after obtaining the necessary approvals. The Tribunal found that the Competent Authority had sanctioned the proceedings as required by law and dismissed the OA, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges. Issue 2: Compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in B.V. Gopinath: The petitioner argued that the charge memo was issued without proper approval from the Disciplinary Authority, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in B.V. Gopinath. The respondents countered that the charge memo was issued following the necessary approvals at two stages: initiation of disciplinary proceedings and approval of the charges. The Court examined the note sheets from 2005 and 2014, confirming that the Finance Minister had approved the initiation of major penalty proceedings and the charge memo, thus complying with the Supreme Court's mandate in B.V. Gopinath. Issue 3: Application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority: The petitioner contended that there was non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, as the charge memo was issued mechanically. The Court disagreed, noting that the approvals in 2005 and 2014 demonstrated clear application of mind by the Competent Authority. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's judgments in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Ors. v. Ananta Saha and Ors., and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, affirming that the approvals were in conformity with the law. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, along with the connected applications, as infructuous. The Tribunal's decision to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner was upheld.
|
