In WP (C) 11485 of 2021-DEL HC- ‘Quashing of charge-sheet warranted only in very rare and exceptional cases where it’s found to be wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal’: Delhi High Court upholds proceedings against Income Tax Officer for accumulating disproportionate wealth
Justice V. Kameswar Rao v Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta [29-05-2023]

Read More: S. Ramu v Union of India

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 30, 2023: The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a petition impugning an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that had dismissed the application by imposing a cost of  INR 50,000/- on the petitioner, held that it was not the case that the charge-sheet was given ex-post facto approval which, according to the Supreme Court in various judgements, was defective as approval could not revive / rectify the acts done in pursuance of such instrument, treating the same to be valid.

The petitioner was an Income Tax Officer (ITO) and Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) between 1989 and 2003. On 01-12-2006, he was issued a charge memo alleging that, he accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known source of income; to the extent of 285%, amongst other charges. The said charge sheet was challenged by raising a plea that the initiation of proceedings as well as the charge memo was not approved as required under law. The same was allowed on 26-08-2011 and it was left open to the respondents to issue a fresh charge memo. Accordingly, a charge memo dated 28-08-2014, was issued referring to the earlier developments and by stating that the Competent Authority had accorded its approval at various stages.

The petitioner contended that even though the earlier charge memo was set aside, there still remained several lapse. If the record was called for, it could have been verified whether the approval was accorded by the authority concerned at appropriate stages. Further it was also contended that there was non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority.

The respondents had conceded that the charges against the petitioner was of serious nature and even though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2006, there was no progress whatsoever. The Tribunal while rejecting the application, stated that the Competent Authority had given sanction as required under the law and the contentions advanced by the petitioner was not correct.

Issue for consideration

1. Whether in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v B.V. Gopinath and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited v Ananta Saha, the Competent Authority had taken a decision for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner
2. Whether the Competent Authority had approved the charge memo to be issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Rules of 1965)

Court Analysis

The Court noted that when the first charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, there was a decision of the Competent Authority of the year 2005 approving the initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. The note sheets of 2014 also show that approval was granted by the Finance Minister, by referring to the approval in 2005 for initiating major penalty proceedings. The Competent Authority had also approved the Charge Memo under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, and had also accorded the appointment of Inquiry Officer / Presenting Officer, if required, in the course of departmental proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner.

The Court disagreed with the contention of the petitioner that there was no application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority in the year 2003 since there was a subsequent decision in 2005 of the Competent Authority for initiating proceedings with respect to the petitioner. In any case, the charge sheet which was challenged before the Tribunal was dated 28-08-2014, which had been issued after being approved by the Competent Authority on 17-08-2014, which clearly revealed the application of mind on the part of the Authority.

The Court stated that the mandate of the Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath (Supra) had been duly complied with by the respondents since the Disciplinary Authority had to approve the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the officer, approve the charge memo and appoint Inquiry Officer / Presenting Officer. Further, in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal India Limited (Supra), the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority did not ensure compliance of the order of the High Court which stood confirmed by the Division Bench and also on the ground that the fresh inquiry was not initiated by the Competent Authority, as it was initiated by the Officer on Special Duty and had been merely seen by the CMD, ECL who was also not the Competent Authority. The Supreme Court had held that the proceedings could only be initiated by the CMD, CIL, thus, the entire proceedings stood vitiated. Hence, the order of dismissal was quashed.

The Court stated the decisions of the Finance Minister on 01-12-2005 and also on 17-08-2014 approving the issuance of memorandum under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 were with a clear application of mind. Thus, it was right to state that the approvals were in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court. “It was a settled position of law that the quashing of a charge-sheet was warranted only in very rare and exceptional cases where, it was found to be wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, whereas in the present case the memorandum dated 28-08-2014 was issued by the Competent Authority and there was no illegality in that respect.”