Madras High Court
Union Of India vs The Central Administrative ... on 12 April, 2022
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
Union of India
Rep.by the Secretary to the Government
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
New Delhi 110 001. ...Appellant
-vs-
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench Rep. By its Registrar,
City Civil Court Buildings,
High Court Complex,
Chennai 600 104.
2. Shiva Srinivas ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of 1 st respondent
Tribunal in OA No.1067/2016 dated 06.09.2018 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.Menon Karthik Mukundan for R2
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
ORDER
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
N.MALA, J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed against the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A.No.1067 of 2016, by
which the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the
Writ Petitioner herein, thereby allowing the Original Application.
2. The case of the Applicant / 2nd Respondent herein is that he was
working as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. According to him, a Charge
Memo dated 18.04.2016 was issued against him, alleging misconduct
relating to an assessment of Tax decided by him in the year 2009. The
Applicant was holding the post of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax from
01.04.2016 and the assessment in respect of charge memo dated 18.12.2009
had occurred much prior to the said period. The Writ Petitioner has invoked
the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules for issuance of charge memo
regarding certain irregularities committed by him. The Tribunal, by order
dated 06.09.2018 in O.A. No. 1067 of 2016 quashed the charge memo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
issued by the Writ Petitioner herein and aggrieved by the same, the present
Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submitted that the
Applicant had discharged his duty in favour of an Assessee, by name
Mr.Mohd.Yousuf and despite adducing sufficient list of dates to the
Tribunal as proof in respect of time taken for issuance of the charge memo,
the Tribunal, without proper application of mind, quashed the charge memo,
which needs interference by this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant / 2nd Respondent contended
that in fact after assessment and considering various aspects, it was the
Applicant, who had enhanced the Tax liability of one B.Mohammed
Yousuf, in respect of which, the charge memo came to be issued to him.
Moreover, the alleged assessment had taken place in the year 2009 and after
a lapse of seven years, charges were levelled against him, which has no legs
to stand. The interference with the charge memo by the Tribunal is perfectly
valid and is sustained in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
5. Head both sides.
6. The case put forth by the Writ Petitioner / Department is that a
complaint was received from the CCS (CCA) against the Applicant for
rendering a decision with a dishonest intention in favour of an Assessee and
that the applicant has committed a serious misconduct while in service.
Therefore, it was decided to proceed against the employee for a major
misconduct under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The learned counsel for
the Applicant submitted that four charges have been framed against the
Applicant and that the proceedings have been contemplated before issuance
of the Charge Sheet against the Applicant, which is an usual practice.
Undoubtedly, the delay is on the part of the Department and it is
impermissible for the Writ Petitioner / Department to bypass the procedure
contemplated in the Disciplined Procedures / Guidelines / Instructions to
proceed with an enquiry.
7. In the present case on hand, though a complaint has been received
from the Assessee immediately, there is no need to wait for seven long years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
to issue a charge memo and therefore, it is obvious that there is a delay in
issuance of charge memo. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (1996) 3 SCC 157 in the case of Secretary to Government, Prohibition
& Excised Department Vs L.Srinivasan, while deciding the case of delay in
issuance of charge memo, held that in the nature of charges, it would take a
long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which
should be done in secrecy. The matter may take time and that sufficient
evidence have got to be taken before the issuance of charge memo and the
limitation cannot be applicable in those cases and that the charge memo
cannot be interfered on the ground of delay. But, at the same time, the
present case on hand does not fall in that category for the simple reason that
the Department, inspite of receipt of the complaint from the Assessee, failed
to act upon it with an immediate effect, proceed with the enquiry by
issuance of charge memo and the Department would have completed the
said exercise well before seven years instead of sleeping over for seven
years. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
UCO Bank and others Vs Rajendra Shankar Shukla, reported in (2018)
14 SCC 92, it was held in Paragraph Nos.12 & 13, which are extracted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
below:-
“12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and
order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to
highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course
of submission made by the learned counsel. the first issue of concern is
the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge-sheet against
Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that
some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took
the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and
unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge-sheet against Shukla is
liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its
issuance.
13. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is that
Shukla was placed in a higher category as a Manager on 19.07.1994 while
all these discussions were going on in the Bank. He was also allowed to
cross the efficiency bar on 12.08.1996 again while the discussions were
going on. Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding against Shukla
for misconduct, they would not only have taken prompt action in issuing a
charge-sheet but would not have granted him the benefit of being placed
in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar.”
8. In view of the above dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, we
find substance in the argument advanced by the the Applicant, who is the 2 nd
respondent herein and in view of the inordinate delay involved in issuance
of charge memo, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is liable to
be upheld.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
9. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
(S.V.N.J.,) (N.M,J.,)
12.04.2022
dpq
Note: Issue order copy on 27.06.2022.
To:
The Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Rep. By its Registrar,
City Civil Court Buildings,
High Court Complex,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16651 of 2019
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
N.MALA, J.
dpq
W.A.No.16651 of 2019
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
