AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: P. Madhavan, Judicial Member -MA No. 180/172/2021 is filed by the official respondents in OA No. 180/233/2019 seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filling MA No. 180/171/2021 and seeking condonation of delay of 310 days in filing RA No. 180/2/2021.
As per the order dated 10th January, 2020 in OA No. 180/233/2019 the official respondents were directed to complete the inquiry against the applicant on a day to day basis and complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months and it was also ordered that if the respondents failed to complete the inquiry within that period, the entire proceedings will become nonest.
MA No. 180/172/2021 was filed by the official respondents to condone the delay of 44 days in re-presenting MA No. 180/171/2021 after curing defects and seeking condonation of delay of 310 days in filing the above Review Application before this Tribunal. According to the MA applicants they had filed the Review Application before the Registry and it was returned pointing out certain defects and the respondents could not prepare the same and file as directed by the Registry. Therefore there had occurred a delay of 44 days in filing MA No. 180/171/2021. According to the counsel, the affidavit and the miscellaneous application had to be prepared again and sent for verification and signature and it was because of that the delay of 44 days took place. The counsel had also filed MA No. 180/171/2021 seeking condonation of delay of 310 days in filing the Review Application. According to the counsel for the applicants the inquiry could not be completed within the prescribed time and they had filed an MA for extension of time as well. But it appears that the order passed by this Tribunal was self working order and the Tribunal has ordered the completion of the proceedings within a period of three months and on failure the entire proceedings will become nonest. They could not complete the proceedings. According to the counsel for the MA applicants the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.3.2020 in suo motu WP© No. 3/2020 had extended the limitation period for various proceedings due to the pandemic situation and hence they are entitled to get the delay condoned.
The counsel for the MA respondent filed objections against the same. According to the counsel for the MA respondent the MA applicants are expected to explain the delay on day to day basis and they had not done the same.
We have carefully gone through the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the official respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu WP© No. 3/2020 dated 23.3.2020 has ordered that owing to the difficulties experienced due to the pandemic Covid-19 across the Country, it was ordered that the period of limitation in all such proceedings irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special law whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15 th March, 2020 until further orders. In view of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Superme Court under Article 142, the MA applicants in this case are entitled to get the delay condoned. Accordingly, MAs Nos. 180/172/2021 and 180/171/2021 seeking condonation of delay are allowed and the RA No. 180/2/2021 is admitted.
The case of the Review Applicants in this case is that this Tribunal had disposed of OA No. 180/233/2019 as follows:
"14.Be that as it may we are of the view that the department may con- duct the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on a day to day ba- sis, if they are very serious to do so, but at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the in- quiry will be declared as nonest." The said order of the Tribunal was produced as Annexure RA1. According to the RA applicants they had appointed the inquiry officer and presenting officer on 20.12.2019 just before the issuance of Annexure RA1 order. The proceedings were immediately started and directions were given to expedite the proceedings and the documents relied on were supplied to the presenting officer on 10.2.2020. The inquiry was fixed on 27.02.2020 and 28.02.2020. Thereafter the next inquiry date was fixed in the 3 rd week of March, 2020 when the Country went into nationwide lockdown on 24.3.2020 and they could not complete the inquiry. It is in these circumstances that they have filed MA No. 180/453/2020 for extension of time for 14 months for completion of the proceedings but the direction of the Tribunal was to complete it within a period of three months. Though the procedure was started in the month of December, 2019 itself they could not complete the inquiry before the lockdown. It seems that after 27 th and 28th February, 2020 no examination was done and inquiry officer in violation of the order posted the case to 3rd week of March, 2020. So we find that the Department has clearly neglected to do their duty by adjourning the inquiry. Thereafter the MA applicants proceeded and took statements of witnesses by conducting meetings through Zoom. The inquiry officer is in the process of summation of the inquiry report. Even on 29.5.2020 they could not complete the inquiry as the charged officer sought for inspection of the records. It is also submitted that the inquiry officer in the case was the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax posted at Delhi and they had appointed a presenting officer i.e. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who was working at Chennai. Since these officers were holding responsible posts, conducting day to day inquiry will affect their respective works. So they seek a review of this Tribunal's order passed in OA No. 180/233/2019. They rely upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in WP© No. 3/2020 to overcome the failure to complete the proceedings in three months. The statement made in Review Application clearly shows lack of interest in completing the inquiry.
The RA respondent's counsel would submit that if we go through the pleadings in the Review Application it can be seen that none of the conditions prescribed for making out a case for review is fulfilled. No patent errors in the order or omission to produce any evidence etc. were brought out in this Review Application. In these circumstances the Review Application filed by the official respondents in the OA cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
We find merit in the above submission. The RA applicants had failed to make out a case for review. There is absolutely no legal reason put forward for having review of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 180/233/2019.
In the circumstances there no merit in the RA filed and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.