LAKSHMI SINGH NEGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lakshmi Singh Negi, Commissioner of Income Tax, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, questioning the memorandum dated 04.11.2004, vide which the President proposed to hold an enquiry against him under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965), as per substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour mentioned in the statement of articles of charge (Annexure -I), which came to be received by the applicant along with the memorandum aforesaid. Inasmuch as, the controversy at this stage is in a very narrow compass, we may give only such facts as may be relatable to the same.

(2.) The applicant joined the Indian Revenue Service in the year 1980. He was initially posted as Assistant Commissioner, and later promoted as Joint Commissioner in the year 1999, and then as Commissioner in the year 2001. A common charge -sheet vide memorandum dated 04.11.2004 came to be issued to the applicant and five others, namely, S/Shri S. N. Prasad, Commissioner; R. D. Gupta, Commissioner (Appeals); Varinder Mehta, Joint Commissioner; Jairaj Kumar, Additional Commissioner; and Harinder Yadav, Assistant Director, in respect of a period when the applicant was posted as Joint Commissioner (Income Tax) at Rohtak, Haryana. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.11.2008 finding the articles of charge I, II and III as partly proved. On 23.11.2009, the applicant through an application under the Right to Information Act sought information as regards the authority who had approved the charge -sheet/memorandum dated 04.11.2004, and vide reply dated 16.12.2009 received by him, he was informed that the charge -sheet/memorandum aforesaid was vetted/ approved by the then DG (Vigilance). The applicant was then served a copy of office memorandum dated 25.08.2010 on 18.11.2010, informing him of the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authoritys view thereon, as also the CVCs second stage advice concurring with the disciplinary authoritys view recommending imposition of a major penalty on him, and allowing him fifteen days to make his representation. The applicant made his representation on 03.12.2010, wherein apart from other submissions, he pointed out that the charge -sheet issued to him had not been approved by the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Finance Minister, and, therefore, no action could be taken against him. When the plea raised by the applicant that the charge -sheet was defective, brought no tangible results, present Original Application came to be filed with the relief as already indicated above.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their counter reply. There is no dispute on the fact that the charges framed against the applicant have not been approved by the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Finance Minister, and in fact have been approved by then DG (Vigilance). It is also not in dispute that insofar as the enquiry officer is concerned, he has held three articles of charge I, II and III as partly proved, whereas the disciplinary authority, in disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer has held charges II and III as fully proved. We may reproduce para 4 of the dissenting note recorded by the disciplinary authority dated 25.08.2010, insofar as the same is relevant: 4. On examination of the Inquiry Report the DA held as under: Article of charge IOs findings CommentsArticle -I(a) Proved ProvedArticle -I(b) Proved ProvedArticle -I(c) Not Proved Not ProvedArticle -I(d) Not Proved Not ProvedArticle -II Partly Proved ProvedArticle -III Partly Proved ProvedThe DA held that, consequently, imposition of major penalty was attracted in your case.