M R IQBAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner at all material times was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. On the ground of alleged irregularities in discharge of his official duties he was chargesheeted for violation of Rule 3(l)(i)(ii)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A departmental proceeding was held, wherein he was found guilty. A copy of the enquiry Report was served upon him and he made a representation thereagainst on 15th December 1997. No action was taken thereon for a long time. He, therefore, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was marked as O.A. No. 949/00. The said application was disposed of on 21st November 2000 directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings. Union Public Service Commission (in short 'UPSC') was, therfore, consulted by the disciplinary authority, whereupon the impugned order dated 21st March 2001 was communicated to him on 19th April 2001, whereby and whereunder, a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages till the dale of his retirement i.e. 31st June 2002 was passed.

(2.) Questioning the said order an Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was filed by him before the learned Tribunal, inter alia, contending therein: (a) although a complaint filed by the Tax Practioners' Association was the basis of initiation of the departmental proceedings, neither the same was made a part of the charge-sheet nor a copy thereof was served on him; (b) the delay in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings has vitiated the ultimate order of imposition of penalty; (c) in the meantime, as he had been promoted in the year 1994 the misconduct on his part, if any, was condoned; and (d) In any event, the quantum of penalty is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

(3.) The learned Tribunal by reason of the impugned judgment, inter alia held: (i) some delay in completion of the disciplinary proceeding could not result in holding the same to be an illegal one; (ii) as he was promoted at a point of time when no charge-sheet had been issued and as at that point of time his vigilance clearance could not have been denied having regard to the DOPT's instructions dated 12th September 1992, the same and (iii) the disciplinary proceeding was otherwise valid in law.