- (1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi quashing the charges (charge-sheet) framed on 7/02/1991 against the respondent. The respondent is a member of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and is presently working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. On 7/02/1991, a memorandum of charges was issued to him accompanied by a "statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of article of charges" framed against him. The articles of charges are the following: Article-1 The said Shri Upendra Singh while posted as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, B. S. D. (North) Range Bombay during the financial year 1986-87, got a survey under Section 133-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 conducted in the cases of Raghuvanshi group of builders on 9/01/1987. During the course of this survey incriminating documents and a confessional statement of the assessees showing unaccounted receipts of Rs. 1.56 crores and admitted unaccounted incomes of Rs. 46.60 lakhs earned by four firms of this group, viz. M/s Raghuvanshi Builders, M/s Raghuvanshi Developers, M/s Raghuvanshi Associates and M/s Raghani Builders, were obtained : (A) The said Shri Upendra Singh initiated proceedings under Section 144-A in the case of M/s Raghuvanshi Builders, M/s Raghuvanshi Developers and M/s Raghuvanshi Associates in an illegal and improper manner. (B) During the aforementioned proceedings under Section 144-A, the said Shri Upendra Singh neither examined the incriminating documents and evidence collected during the survey, nor passed any orders under Section 144-A, in spite of being aware of the evidence gathered during the survey. (C) The said Shri Upendra Singh during the aforementioned proceedings under Section 144-A improperly and illegally acquiesced in the assessees' offer to disclose only an amount of Rs. 11,27,794. 00 in the names of the aforesaid firms and did not direct the assessing officer to bring to tax the full amount of undisclosed incomes of these firms as admitted during the survey on 9/01/1987. (D) The said Shri Upendra Singh gave illegal and improper directions to the assessing officer to complete the assessments in the cases of M/s Raghuvanshi Builders, M/s Raghuvanshi Developers and M/s Raghuvanshi Associates under Section 143 (1 even though at the relevant time proceedings under Section 144-A of I. T. Act, 1961 were pending before him and these cases did not come within the purview of the Summary Assessment Scheme of the Amnesty Scheme of the CBDT. 2. Shri Upendra Singh has, therefore, violated Rules 3 (l) (i) , 3 (1 (ii) and 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. "
(2.) For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to set out the statement of imputations which is a very lengthy one referring elaborately to the material and evidence which was sought to be relied upon against the respondent at the proposed inquiry. As soon as the memo of charges was served upon the respondent, he approached the tribunal for quashing the charges. The tribunal admitted the original application and passed the following interim order: "The learned counsel submitted that the applicant has been served with a charge-sheet on account of the charges which relate to the discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the applicant. He, therefore, prayed for that as per Supreme court's decision in the case of V. D. Trivedi v. Union of India interim directions may be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding against the applicant under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. We have considered the matter and in the interest of justice, we restrain the respondents from proceeding with disciplinary action in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 7/02/1991 for a period of 14 360 days. List the case on 18/04/1991 for further consideration of interim relief. Order Dasti. "
(3.) Against the said interim order, the Union of India approached this court by way of Civil No. 4316 of 1991. The appeal was allowed by this court by its order dated 10/09/1992 and the tribunal was directed to "deal with the matter in the light of the observations made by this court in Union of India v. A. N. Saxena ". It was further directed that "in the meanwhile the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent on the basis of the memorandum dated 7/02/1991 would continue". It is necessary to notice the observations in the said judgment. The bench first dealt with the submission that no disciplinary proceedings can be taken against an officer in respect of his judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It rejected the contention following the decision of this court in Union of India v. A. N. Saxena. While rejecting the said contention the bench drew particular attention to the following observations in A. N. Saxena : "In the first place, we cannot, but confess our astonishment at the impugned order passed by the tribunal. In a case like this the tribunal, we feel, should have been very careful before granting stay in a disciplinary proceeding at an interlocutory stage. The imputations made against the respondent were extremely serious and the facts alleged, if proved, would have established misconduct and misbehaviour. It is surprising that without even a counter being filed, at an interim stage, the tribunal without giving any reasons and without apparently considering whether the memorandum of charges deserved to be enquired into or not, granted a stay of disciplinary proceedings as it has done. If the disciplinary proceedings in such serious matters are stayed so lightly as the tribunal appears to have done, it would be extremely difficult to bring any wrongdoer to book. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of the tribunal and we direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in terms of the charge-sheet dated 13/03/1989 shall be proceeded with according to law. In fact, we would suggest that disciplinary proceedings should be proceeded with as early as possible and with utmost zeal. "the bench further opined that "the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of this court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the said decision, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be upheld". Evidently because the said appeal was preferred against an interlocutory order made by the Tribunal, the bench directed the Tribunal to deal with the original application in the light of the decision in A. N. Saxena. The bench directed expressly that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were to continue.;