Union Of India And vs Radhakanta Seth And
2025 Latest Caselaw 8237 Ori

Orissa High Court

Union Of India And vs Radhakanta Seth And on 15 September, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                 WP(C) No.23700 of 2025

                                   Union of India and
                                   others                                    .... Petitioners

                                                           Mr. Abhishek Mohanty,
                                                           Central Govt. Counsel
                                                                 -versus-
                                   Radhakanta Seth and
                                   another                                   .... Opp. Parties
                                                      CORAM:
                                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                                       ORDER

       Order No.                                     15.09.2025
                    01.                 This    matter      is     taken     up     through      Hybrid

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter "Tribunal", in short) in O.A. No.260/00237 of 2021 allowing the Original Application filed by the applicant-opposite party no.1 and quashing the memorandum of charge dated 08.04.2021.

The applicant-opposite party no.1 filed the Original Application before the learned Tribunal seeking

for following reliefs:

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

"(i) To quash the Memorandum of charge Date: 16-Sep-2025 14:30:27

sheet no.DIT(I&CI)/BBSR/Con/RKS/2021-

22/16 dated 08.04.2021 under Annexure-

A/1;

(ii) To pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper."

After issuance of notice, the petitioners appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed the counter affidavit and the applicant-opposite party no.1 also filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners. From the petitioners' side, reply was filed to the rejoinder affidavit.

From the factual scenario, it appears that the applicant-opposite party no.1, who was a retired Income Tax Officer, completed the scrutiny assessment under section 142 of the IT Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2010-11 to 2016-17, but the allegation against him is that the same was completed in a reckless and grossly negligent manner without proper inquiry and investigation with malafide intention to favour the assesses. According to the applicant- opposite party no.1 that in terms of the IT Act, 1961 if the order of assessment was in any manner wrong or illegal or passed with malafide intention, the same is reversible in exercise of the power under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, but no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 293 of the IT Act, 1961 and therefore, the initiation of disciplinary proceeding is against the statutory provision.

Section 293 of the IT Act, 1961 reads as follows:

"...........no prosecution suit or other proceedings shall lie against any officer of the Government for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act."

The applicant-opposite party no.1 placed reliance on different decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where such initiation of disciplinary proceeding has been quashed and it is the case of the applicant- opposite party no.1 that the charge sheet is not sustainable and the proceeding with the inquiry will be nothing but a humiliation and harassment to him.

The contention which was raised by the petitioners in the counter affidavit is that the applicant-opposite party no.1 was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jharsuguda and Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Sambalpur during the financial year 2016- 17 to 2018-19 and during these periods, he passed assessment orders in 145 cases, out of which, the Director, Vigilance, Kolkata with the approval of the DA carried out inspection of 40 assessment records and prima facie found that the applicant-opposite party no.1 completed the scrutiny assessment in 35 cases without proper inquiry and investigation and it appears to be in a reckless and grossly negligence manner on the part of the applicant-opposite party no.1.

Learned Tribunal after considering the contentions of the respective parties and placing reliance on the cases of Union of India & others

-Vrs.- K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 56, Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar -Vrs.- Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 2881, Union of India -Vrs.- Duli Chand reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 680 and Ramesh Chander Singh -Vrs.- High Court of Allahabad and others reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 247 held as follows:-

"18. From the above, it is clear that mere mistake of law, disciplinary action cannot be taken, but if there is "something more", then such action can be taken against an employee. This would clearly indicate that in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has defined the conditions under which a government official, exercising powers of quasi-judicial authority, could be subjected to departmental proceedings. The Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Duli Chand and Ramesh Chander Singh (supra) have also enunciated the same ratio broadly.

19. Thus, a harmonious reading of the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Apex

Court leaves no doubt in our mind that a government official exercising powers of quasi-judicial authority cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for committing any mistake of law but, if there is "something more", then he can certainly be subjected to such proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings initiated alleging omission and commission in passing the assessment order against Sri P.C. Khandelwal, ACIT, Income Tax, came up for consideration before the CAT, PB New Delhi in OA No.3015/2015 (PC Khandelwal Vs UOI). The CAT, PB, New Delhi taking into consideration all the decisions discussed above, allowed the OA holding as under:

"23. In the instant case, the applicant had passed assessment orders in regard to NIIT Group Companies. Apparently, his superiors felt that the assessment orders passed by the applicant in his capacity of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment Officer) are not proper and have earned loss to the exchequer. It is not in dispute that the applicant has passed order exercising

his powers of quasi-judicial authority. His superiors, however, have found that the applicant has not passed the assessment order with due diligence and many crucial factors have not been taken into consideration by the applicant in passing the orders. In the other words, the superiors were not satisfied with the quality of the assessment orders. There is no allegation against the applicant with regard to any illegal gratification or ulterior motive. As such, "something more" is missing. The Department had the opportunity to challenge the assessment orders passed by the applicant before higher fora for rectification. In the absence of "something more" and relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, discussed in paragraph 16 of this order, we are of the view that the respondents were not justified in subjecting the applicant to the DE proceedings.

24. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we quash and set aside the impugned Annexure A-1

charge memo dated 31.05.2010 and as a consequence thereof, all further proceedings also stand quash and set aside."

20. Therefore, the present matter being same and similar, we hold that the DA was not justified in subjecting the applicant to the disciplinary proceedings for the order of assessment passed by the applicant in exercise of quasi judicial authority as per the statute. For the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the Memorandum of charge No.DIT (I&CI)/BBSR/Con/RKS/2021-22/16 dated 08.04.2021 (A/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly quashed."

When we put a pertinent question to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any of the assessment orders of the applicant-opposite party no.1 was reviewed before the higher authority in view of the section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the answer is in negative.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find that the learned Tribunal has not only taken into account the provisions of section 293 of the IT Act, 1961 but also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions and has

came to hold that the petitioners were not justified in subjecting the applicant-opposite party no.1 to disciplinary proceeding for the order of assessment passed by him in exercise of power conferred as a quasi judicial authority as per the statute and the applicant-opposite party no.1 has retired in the meantime, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and therefore, when the learned Tribunal has held that the memorandum of charge is not sustainable in the eye of law and quashed the same, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

( S.S. Mishra) Judge Rajesh