Hemanta Bijoy Mahanta vs Union Of India & Ors.

M.L. Srivastava, Member (A)

Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s) :

“8.1. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to open the sealed cover and act on the same by promoting the applicant to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax w.e.f. the date of promotion of the juniors from the DPC/ACC's panel dated 11.11.2019, with all consequent benefits including arrear monetary benefit.

8.2. Pending regular promotion as per para 1 above, the applicant Be 73100 promoted to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on ad hoc basis with immediate effect, enforcing the Government of India's instructions of review dated 14.09.1992(Annexure A4).

8.3. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case..”

Brief facts of the case as emerged from pleadings are that the applicant is a retired Officer from Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax). He stands superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2020 (AN) from the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. His next promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was held up and kept in sealed cover due to issuance of a Charge sheet dated 18.04.2019 against him in reference to orders passed by the applicant while discharging his function as quasi-judicial authority.

The applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 09.05.2019 denying the charges alleged and requested for personal hearing. Thereafter, applicant has neither received any communication from the department nor he was called for personal hearing.

In the meantime, DPC/ACC was held on 11.11.2019 for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax whereby his name was recommended for promotion. The recommendation for selection of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had been kept in sealed cover. It is the submission of applicant that the case of a Government servant in a sealed cover is limited to the barest minimum and after six months there shall be a review and promotion shall be given on ad hoc basis. Since no decision has been taken by the respondent authority hence this O.A.

One Original Application No. 76/2020 has already been filed by the applicant challenging the charge sheet dated 18.04.2020 wherein notices have been issued and the same is still pending before this Tribunal.

Additionally, learned counsel for applicant submitted that in terms of DoPT OM dated 14.10.2013 (reflected in DoPT OM dated 08.12.2017) the mandated period for completion of the Departmental Proceedings is 18 months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem nath Baloi Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Anr [(2015) 16 SCC 415) fixed the outer limit for concluding Disciplinary Proceedings by holding as under :

"...we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and nature of inquiry but not more than a year."

It is stated that after the expiry of 12 months as decided by the Hon’ble Judiciary there is no scope to proceed with the departmental proceedings. It is stated that the sealed cover was liable to be opened after expiry of 12 months from the date of issuance of the charge memo when disciplinary proceedings were deemed to have been closed after receipt of the Written statement of defence. It is further stated that the applicant was also entitled for ad hoc promotion after expiry of six months from the date of sealed cover since no review was done.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the charge Memorandum has been issued as per law by following due procedure of law. The matter was processed after making a reference to CVC and after the receipt of its advice on 17.01.2019, matter was put up before the FM as Disciplinary Authority for approval of the charge memorandum to be issued to the Applicant. The D.A approved the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings and issuance of the charge memorandum on 03.04.2019 and thereafter the same was issued to the Applicant on 18.04.2019. He further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I & Ors. -Vs- K.K. Dhawan 1993(2) SCC 56 in which the apex Court has enumerated six instances wherein even officers exercising quasi-judicial functions were liable to be proceeded by Disciplinary Proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that, if the quasi judicial authority acts in a reckless and negligent manner conferring undue benefit on others and his actions have been actuated by malafide intentions such an authority is liable to be proceeded against. He further submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 03.03.2020 passed in OA 76/2020 ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant and in the meantime due to the COVID-19 Pandemic lockdown started and process was held up again. WS-D has been examined and further process of inquiry proceedings are now in progress.

We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and carefully gone though the material available on record.

After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, we find that the present applicant had also filed one more Original Application bearing No. 76/2020 against the charge memorandum issued to him, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.8.2025. The operative paragraph of said order is reproduced herein below:-

“ 16. In the light of above discussion, the present O.A. is disposed of, with a direction to the Competent Authority, to conclude the pending departmental proceedings against the applicant, by bringing it to its logical conclusion within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant would be at liberty to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if he is aggrieved by the orders so passed by the respondent authorities, on concluding the disciplinary proceedings.”

On careful consideration of the matter, it is observed that the aforementioned inquiry proceedings pending against the applicant have been directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. In the instant case, the prayer of the applicant is to open the sealed cover in his case and act on the same, by promoting him to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, w.e.f. the date of promotion of his juniors from the DPC/ACC’s panel dated 11.11.2019 with all consequential benefits, including arrears monetary benefits.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents that after the conclusion of the pending inquiry proceedings against the applicant within the stipulated time period as directed, if the applicant is exonerated in the departmental proceedings, and the charges leveled against him, are dropped, the respondent authorities shall open the sealed cover and act upon as per the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the matter. In the eventuality of his promotion, as per his merit, he should be granted the notional promotion as the applicant has already retired to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax w.e.f. the date of promotion of his junior/due date.

Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above direction. The respondent authorities shall do the needful within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.