Delhi High Court
Homi Rajvansh, Irs vs Union Of India And Others on 3 November, 2008
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6499 of 2008
Judgment reserved on: September 24, 2008
% Judgment delivered on: November 03, 2008
Homi Rajvansh, IRS
Commissioner of Income Tax
C-93, 2nd Floor
Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi - 110 048 ...Petitioner
Through Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate
Versus
1. Union of India
through Secretary, Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes
through its Chairman
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi-110001
3. National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation of India Ltd.
NAFED House, Ashram Chowk
Siddharth Enclave, New Delhi-110014
4. The Secretary
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkata Bhawan
Near INA Market, New Delhi ...Respondents
Through Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate
WP (C) No.6499/2008 Page 1 of 6
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 1st April, 2008
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in OA No.1914 of 2007.
2. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the Petitioner has
challenged a charge sheet issued to him by his principal employer, that
is, Respondent No.2 - the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
3. The Petitioner was on deputation with Respondent No.3
(NAFED) and it seems that he was not able to get along with the
concerned authorities in NAFED and sought his repatriation back to the
parent department. However, NAFED had intended to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and had even sought the
advice of the Central Vigilance Commission in this regard.
Accordingly, he was not being repatriated to his parent department.
4. Since the Petitioner was not being repatriated, he filed a writ
petition in this Court being Writ Petition (C) No.9137 of 2006 seeking
repatriation and that writ petition is pending disposal. NAFED
subsequently repatriated the Petitioner back to his parent department
and appears to have informed the parent department about the conduct
of the Petitioner. On an overall consideration of the matter, the CBDT
issued a memorandum of charges to the Petitioner on 22 nd December,
2006. Along with the charge sheet, the Petitioner was also served the
opinion dated 17th May, 2006 expressed by the Central Vigilance
Commission.
5. The Petitioner challenged the charge sheet issued to him
before the Tribunal and it appears that the principal submission made
was that since the proceedings were initiated on the advice given by the
Central Vigilance Commission addressed to NAFED, this could not
have validly conferred jurisdiction on the CBDT to initiate departmental
proceedings. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal and has not
been canvassed before us. It was also contended before the Tribunal
that the charge sheet was issued for mala fide reasons and that the
Petitioner had made serious allegations of mala fides against the officers
of NAFED but the Tribunal considered the allegations to be
"suggestive" and did not find adequate reason to interfere with the
charge sheet. The Tribunal also noted that the Supreme Court has
categorically expressed the view that when a charge sheet is issued to an
employee, the departmental proceedings ought to continue and should
not be interdicted unless there are very good reasons to do so.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner obviously could not
challenge the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India
& Ors. V. Upender Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and Air India Ltd. v. M.
Yogeshwar Raj, 2000 SCC (L&S) 710. The sum and substance of these
decisions is that if a charge sheet is issued without jurisdiction or if it is
otherwise illegal or has been issued for mala fide reasons, then the
Tribunal or the Court can interdict the departmental proceedings.
Interference by the Tribunal or by the Court should be in rare but clear
cases of want of jurisdiction or illegality or mala fides.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon State of
Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, 2000 (7) SCALE 731 to contend that since the
charge sheet was issued for mala fide reasons, the Court can certainly
interdict the departmental proceedings. There is no doubt about this
proposition but unfortunately it does not apply to the facts of the present
case.
8. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the mala
fides are attributable to NAFED and its authorities. There is nothing to
suggest, nor has it been argued before us, that anyone in the CBDT
acted in a mala fide manner against the Petitioner. Under these
circumstances, it is very difficult for us to hold that because the officers
of NAFED had acted in a mala fide manner and had allegedly harassed
and victimized the Petitioner, for that reason the CBDT could not issue
a charge sheet to the Petitioner. Since allegations of mala fides have not
been made against the CBDT, we cannot transpose the allegations of
mala fides made against the officers of NAFED (even if the allegations
are substantiated) to set aside the charge sheet issued by the CBDT. The
contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is, in our opinion, wide
off the mark. There is nothing to suggest that there was no application
of mind by the CBDT before issuing the charge sheet to the Petitioner,
and indeed, no such argument was advanced by learned counsel.
9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is,
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
November 03, 2008 SURESH KAIT, J
ncg
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
