UNION OF INDIA Vs. D B GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned counsel, Mr.Vaishnav waives service for respondent.

(2.) At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up today itself for final disposal and disposed of by this order.

(3.) The respondent will hereinafter referred to as the applicant. The applicant was asked to explain certain actions taken by him as Income Tax Officer by letter dated 9.9.1997. Not satisfied with his reply, he was served with charge sheet dated 9.3.1999. The applicant denied the charges levelled in the charge sheet. Hence, Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report dated 22.11.2000 in favour of the the applicant by holding that none of the charges was found to be proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority communicated his disagreement note vide his letter dated 4.9.2002 to which the applicant submitted his exhaustive reply dated 24.9.2002. When no decision was taken at this stage, the applicant had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") by way of O.A. No.236/03, which was disposed of by an order dated 13.5.2003 by the learned Tribunal with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the same within two months. Thereafter, M.A. No.473/03 was moved by the present petitioners, who were the respondents before the Tribunal, for extension of time till 30.9.2003, which was allowed. It was stated therein that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded his disagreement that the advice of CVC and the same was forwarded to the Directorate of Income Tax (Vigilance). Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority by notice dated 26.9.2003, issued under rule 15, asked to explain the position in respect of conclusions arrived in that letter to which the applicant has submitted his detailed reply dated 13.10.2003. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty was passed. The same was challenged by the applicant by way of O.A. No.1 of 2004 before the Tribunal on several grounds, namely, delay in issuing the charge sheet, interference by CVC etc. Before the learned Tribunal, the present petitioners- original respondents, had raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Original Application. Relying on Section 20(1) of the ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 (for short "the Act"), it was submitted that this was not the extra-ordinary case in which the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It was submitted that when there was a statutory alternative remedy of appeal, then the Tribunal should first relegate the applicant to avail that remedy of appeal. However, over- ruling that objection, the learned Tribunal held that under Section 20(1) of the Act, it can always exercise the jurisdiction and on facts of this case, it had exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the applicant on the ground that para 6 of the circular on which reliance was placed by the Disciplinary Authority was bad in law and liable to be struck down and it had come to the conclusion that at the dictate of the CVC, the impugned order of penalty was passed, therefore, quashed and set aside the same. This impugned judgment and order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the Tribunal allowing the Original Application No.1 of 2004 filed by the applicant, is challenged in this petition by the petitioners-Union of India and others.