9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravamen of the charges levelled against the respondent are not based on his conduct. Although it has been alleged that certain decisions rendered indicate a lack of devotion to duty, but a bare perusal of the statement of imputation and the Articles of Charge indicate that the gravamen of the charges is only that the respondent had rendered decisions which, according to the Revenue, were erroneous. This is certainly not the basis on which the proceedings for misconduct can be commenced against a officer who is charged with a quasi-judicial function. As decided in KK. DHAWAN [ 1993 (1) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT] there was a specific allegation that the Officer had completed the assessment apparently with a view to confer to undue favour upon the assessee s concern . The test laid down by the Supreme Court in that case must be read in the context of the facts placed before the Court. Although, the Court had held that where an officer had acted in a manner which would reflect upon his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty, a disciplinary action could be initiated. However, an act of an Officer which would reflect on his devotion to duty must be read in the context o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) CAV No.672/2014 The respondent has entered appearance. Caveat stands discharged. W.P.(C) 5113/2014 CM No.10192/2014 1. The present petition impugns the order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No.2815/2012, setting aside the Charge Memorandum dated 26.04.2012. The said order is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order . 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are as under:- 3. The respondent was working as a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short CIT(Appeals) ) at Cochin from November 2005 to February 2007. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short CBDT ) received a Secret Note from Sh. B. Ravi Balan, the reporting officer of the respondent from June to October, 2005, stating that the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals), had allowed certain appeals without properly appreciating the facts or going through the records. Shri Balan had noted that this gives birth to strong suspicion with regard to his integrity, however there is no specific evidence in this regard . Shri Balan retired in October 2005 and the ACR of the respondent was written in November 2005. It was asserted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III Shri S. Rajguru, while functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi committed irregularity in the appeal order passed by him on 23.08.2005 in the case of Shri M.M. Rasheed (Block Period- 01.04.1989 to 17.09.1998) by deleting additions which had been made by the assessing officer without proper verification of the facts and examination of records. By his aforesaid act, Shri S. Rajguru failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-IV Shri S. Rajguru, while functioning as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi committed irregularity in the appeal order passed by him on 01.09.2005 in the case of Shri Jose Cyriac (Block Period- 01.04.1989 to 23.09.1998) by allowing the assessee s appeal in disregard of the directions given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its order dtd. 30.07.2003. By his aforesaid act, Shri S. Rajguru failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 7. The respondent submitted his written statement of defense dated 07.05.2012, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iating disciplinary proceedings. 10. With respect to the second question, the Tribunal held that there were procedural infirmities because the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issue of charge memo against the respondent had been done at one go. The Tribunal held that this procedure was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed which envisaged that the disciplinary authority had to decide as to whether a disciplinary action was called for and, once such decision had been taken, the disciplinary authority had to consult an independent agency like CVC to seek independent advice. It is only after the independent agency agreed with the disciplinary authority that charges could be framed against the delinquent official. The Tribunal observed that the procedure prescribed was to ensure proper application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The inputs that come between the first and second stage of the decision making process would be a guide to the disciplinary authority to take an informed decision in the matter. Since in this case this procedure had been truncated, the Tribunal found, that there was a procedural infraction, which in the given circumstances, had wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which were decided subsequent to the decision in the case of Duli Chand (supra), the Supreme Court had referred to the decision in the case of Nagarkar (supra) with approval. In the case of Ramesh Chander Singh (supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the case of Nagarkar (supra) held that if the court were to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial order they should have been strong ground to suspect officer s bona fides and the order itself should have been actuated by malice, bias or illegality. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The short question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal had erred in holding that the Articles of Charge were not sustainable since they were based on quasi-judicial orders passed by the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals). 17. The Tribunal, after examining the facts and allegations, came to the conclusion that as there were no allegations that the respondent had acted malafide or for extraneous considerations, the allegations levelled only on the basis of the merits of the decisions rendered by the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals), could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd held that an officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the Court held that the employee, even though acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, would be subject to proceedings for misconduct. It was explained by the Supreme Court that it is not the correctness or legality of the decision that was being examined but the conduct of the employee in discharge of his duty as an officer. 20. In the present case, a plain reading of the Articles of Charge as well as the statement of imputations clearly indicate that the sole basis for making the charges is the correctness of the decisions rendered by the respondent while he was acting as CIT (Appeals). 21. The first Article of Charge relates to the decision rendered by the respondent in the case of M/s Bhagirath Engineering Ltd. In that case, the Assessing Officer had framed an assessment order whereby certain unaccounted payments had been added to the income of the assessee. A sum of `14,78,500/- which was seized from one Anoop Kumar Shah was also added as unexplained income. Sh. Anoop Kumar Shah stated that he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act was not correct. It is on this basis, that a charge has been made that respondent acted against the provisions of law. This, at worst, is a case where the respondent committed an error of law. An error of law cannot form the basis of subjecting a quasi-judicial authority to disciplinary proceedings. As held in K.K. Dhawan (supra), it is not the decision rendered by a quasi-judicial authority which is to be tested but the manner in which he had acted. In the case on hand, there is no allegation that there were any attendant features that would indicate that the respondent had acted on extraneous considerations, recklessly or in a manner so as to favour the assessee. 23. The third Article of Charge is based on a decision rendered by the respondent in respect of an assessee where certain income had been brought to tax. The assessee s case was that the additions made by the AO had already been considered in the assessment of the assessee s wife. The respondent accepted the said contention and deleted the additions in income made by the AO. Some of these deletions made by the respondent were reversed in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee without a search warrant in his name was valid. The only limited question, on which the order made by the respondent was set aside was that he was wrong in admitting a new ground. This case too does not indicate that the respondent had acted recklessly, malafidely or with ulterior motives. There is no allegation that the conduct of the respondent was unbecoming of an officer. The charge made against the respondent is only on the basis of a decision which, according to the Revenue, was erroneous. 25. It can be seen from the above that the gravamen of the charges levelled against the respondent are not based on his conduct. Although it has been alleged that certain decisions rendered indicate a lack of devotion to duty, but a bare perusal of the statement of imputation and the Articles of Charge indicate that the gravamen of the charges is only that the respondent had rendered decisions which, according to the Revenue, were erroneous. This is certainly not the basis on which the proceedings for misconduct can be commenced against a officer who is charged with a quasi-judicial function. In K.K. Dhawan s case (supra) there was a specific allegation that the Officer had c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiating disciplinary proceeding. Of course, if the judicial officer conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation or integrity or good faith or there is a prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties or he had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had passed an order actuated by corrupt motive, the High Court by virtue of its power under Article 235 of the Constitution may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, under such circumstances it should be kept in mind that the Judges at all levels have to administer justice without fear or favour. Fearlessness and maintenance of judicial independence are very essential for an efficacious judicial system. Making adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings would ultimately harm the judicial system at the grassroot level. 29. It is relevant to note that the decision in Ramesh Chand Singh (supra) was delivered by a bench of three judges on 26.02.2007, is subsequent to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Duli Chand (supra). 30. It is also necessary to bear in mind that a CIT (Appeals), essentiall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
