UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBACHAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the judgment and order dtd. 9/3/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby and wherein the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the Respondent No.1 and quashed the impugned order dtd. 14/12/2020 bearing No.C-14011/75/2020-V and LK and held that the applicant therein/Respondent No.2 would be entitled to all consequential benefits which arise out of the quashing of the above mentioned charge-sheet.

(3.) Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the charge-sheet was issued in view of the gravity of the violation of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular while passing the order in the capacity of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Senior counsel contended that the act of the Respondent No.1 in the capacity of the Commissioner (Appeals) even though in his quasi-judicial capacity, clearly falls within the meaning of misconduct as construed under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and is covered by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K. K. Dhawan, wherein the Apex Court has held that any act or conduct either in the judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, which is contrary to the established law or rules, could invite action under the relevant disciplinary rules and the person concerned would be liable for the disciplinary action. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation against the Respondent No.1, as mentioned in the Article of charges are serious in nature causing financial loss to the Government. The Charge No.1 of the article of charge clearly establishes that the Respondent No.1 gave the tax remission to the party in litigation contrary to the CBDT Circular which expressly prohibited giving benefit of sales promotion to the pharmaceuticals companies and further points out that so far as second article of charge is concerned, the Respondent No.1 deliberately reduced number of shares below 10% held by one Anand Sagar in the Assessment Year 2011-12 by taking additional evidence. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer was already appointed and the right course available with the Respondent No1. was to face the enquiry and absolve himself during the course of the proceedings.