UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of all the parties writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, chennai Bench/first respondent herein dated september 24, 2003 made in O. A. No. 447 of 2003, allowing the said application by quashing the Memorandum dated October 8/10, 2002, and reinstating them from conducting departmental enquiry, Commissioner of income Tax-VIII, Chennai-34 has filed the above writ petition praying to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) THE brief facts which are required for the disposal of the writ petition are stated hereunder: the second respondent herein was working as Income Tax Officer in the government of India. On January 29, 1985 there was a raid on the applicant and on the basis of subsequent proceedings, criminal action was initiated on April 25, 1988 and the same was taken on file of the 9th Additional sessions Judge as C. C. No. 6 of 1988 and subsequently the proceedings were transferred to the Court of Special Judge for c. B. I, cases and registered as C. C. No. 19 of 1997. On October 26, 1992, the Department also initiated disciplinary proceedings by framing four Articles of charges. It is the case of the 2nd respondent/applicant that the charges as contained in the charge memo are identical to the charges framed against him in the criminal proceedings. He challenged the said charge memo by filing O. A. No. 946 of 1993 however, the same was dismissed on October 26, 1993. Thereafter, the second respondent filed another petition before the Central administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 778 of 1994 and one of the grounds taken in that case was that in view of the initiation of the criminal proceedings, departmental proceedings could not be continued. By order dated August 5, 1996, the Tribunal has rejected the request of the applicant/2nd respondent herein for staying the departmental proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case in respect of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the charge memo dated October 26, 1992. However, as far as Article 1 is concerned, the petitioners herein were directed to restrain from holding an enquiry till the disposal of the criminal case. It is the case of the second respondent that though the petitioners were restrained from holding enquiry in respect of Article 1 of the charges, the department did not hold any enquiry in respect of charges 2, 3 and 4.

(3.) ON April 24, 2002, the second respondent was acquitted in the criminal case by the Special Principal Sessions Judge for c. B. I, cases. Inspite of this acquittal, by proceedings dated October 8/10, 2002, the second petitioner who claimed to be the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer to enquiry into the charges. Immediately on October 16, 2002 the second respondent made a representation stating that he had been acquitted of the charges by the criminal Court and, therefore, the departmental enquiry should be dropped. This representation was not considered by the petitioners and the enquiry officer intimated that the enquiry would be posted on January 20, 2003. The second respondent made another representation on January 4, 2003 for stay of the enquiry, but this was rejected on January 24, 2003. The enquiry was fixed on January 24, 2003. A further representation was made by the second respondent on April 9, 2003. On april 21, 2003 the charge was read over to the second respondent and thereafter the enquiry was postponed and has been fixed on May 29, 2003. At this stage, the second respondent approached the Tribunal by way of o. A. No. 447 of 2003 praying to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated October 8, 2002 and forebear them from conducting any departmental enquiry against the applicant. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated September 24, 2003, after, considering the claim of both parties, quashed the Memo dated October 8/10, 2002 and restrained the petitioners from conducting departmental enquiry against which, the present writ petition has been filed.