COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance raised by the writ petitioners in this Original Petition is that the Central Administrative Tribunal while hearing the grievance of an Income Tax Officer regarding the adverse entries in his confidential reports, acted as an appellate authority and expunged them. According to the petitioners, in doing so, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Original Petition are the following:

(2.) The applicant before the Tribunal is an Income Tax Officer who was aggrieved by certain adverse remarks in his confidential reports which stood in the way of his getting promotion to the post of Assistan t Commissioner of Income Tax (junior scale). The applicant was informed of the adverse remarks by Annexure A1 dated 28.4.1993 produced along with Ext. P1, the copy of the Original Application. The said remarks related to the period 1992-93. The applicant made a representation before the second petitioner, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax seeking to expunge those remarks. The said Officer expunged one of those remarks entered in column 20 and declined to interfere with other remarks. The said decision was intimated to the applicant by Annexure A3 dated 6.4.1994. The applicant made a further representation to the third petitioner - Chairman, Central Board of Taxes. That was rejected by the said Officer and the intimation in this regard was served on the applicant by Annexure A6 dated 16.5.1995. The applicant attempted a review petition before the third petitioner which also stood rejected as evident from Annexure A8 to Ext. P1.

(3.) The applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1374/96 challenging Annexures A1, A3, A6 and A8 attached to Ext. P1. The applicant submitted that the adverse remarks were entered without following the mandatory procedure governing recording of confidential reports. The applicant contended that the decisions of the higher authorities are bald and cryptic and do not contain any reasons. The respondents in the O.A. who are the writ petitioners herein filed Ext. P2 reply statement controverting the allegations of the applicant.