2023 (7) TMI 621 - SCH - Income Tax

Disciplinary proceedings against the Revenue officer Group-A officer - CBDT gave approval for initiating penalty proceedings against the petitioner - However, approval for issuing Charge Memo/sanction prosecution lies with the Finance Minister - High Court quashed the Issuance of Charge Memo to the Officers of Rank of Commissioner - HELD THAT - As informed that the respondent has already superannuated from service. Besides this, the inquiry proceedings were concluded against him (P.D. Kanunjna) vide inquiry report. Though, the Disciplinary Authority is yet to take a final decision on the said report but the fact remains that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent. We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The question of law as to whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the orders of the competent authority or not is kept open and shall be dealt with in an appropriate case.

Summary

Issues involved: Dismissal of special leave petitions due to respondent's superannuation, inquiry proceedings conclusion, and question of law regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Dismissal of special leave petitions due to respondent's superannuation
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition (SLP) as the respondent had already superannuated from service. The inquiry proceedings against the respondent were concluded with an exoneration by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority is yet to make a final decision on the inquiry report. The Court, considering the circumstances, declined to entertain the SLP and dismissed it. The question of law concerning the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under competent authority remains open for future consideration.

Issue 2: Conclusion of Diary No. 38864/2022
In Diary No. 38864/2022, the delay was condoned. The Court noted that the respondent had already superannuated from service. Given the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the Court decided not to entertain the special leave petition and dismissed it. Similar to the previous issue, the question of law was left open for future determination.

These judgments highlight the significance of the respondent's superannuation in the dismissal of special leave petitions and the importance of considering the completion of inquiry proceedings in such cases. The Court's decision not to entertain the petitions underscores the need for a thorough examination of the legal aspects surrounding disciplinary proceedings initiated by competent authorities.