JASTI CHELAMESWAR, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition is filed on being aggrieved by a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in Original Application No. 120/08 dated 19. 9. 08, by the respondents therein, who are the Union of India, Central Bureau of Direct Taxes and others.
(2.) THE sole respondent herein filed the above mentioned Original Application, in substance, praying that the two memoranda of charges dated 4. 10. 05 and 14. 6. 06 against the respondent, alleging misconduct in the employment of the appellants herein, be quashed and also that the appellants herein be directed to open the sealed cover of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings held in the year 2006 as well as 2007 in respect of the applicant's suitability for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and to act upon the decision of the DPC proceeding. The said Original Application was allowed by the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition. The factual background of the case is as follows :- The respondent joined the Indian Revenue Service in the year 1973 as a Group-A Income Tax Officer. In due course he came to be promoted as a Commissioner of Income Tax on 15. 9. 97. In the year 2002 the respondent was working as one of the Commissioners of Income Tax at Chennai. While working so, he was also a member of a multi member body called Appropriate Authority functioning under Chapter XXII-A of the Income Tax Act as it existed at that point of time. It may be mentioned here that Chapter XXII-A was inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 w. e. f. 15. 11. 72 which in substance provided an option to the Union of India to purchase immovable properties of values higher than the ones specified under the above mentioned Chapter and it is also necessary to mention that the value so specified in the Chapter kept on varying from time to time and at the relevant point of time the value specified was Rs. 25 lakhs. The heading of the Chapter was "acquisition of Immoveable Properties in Certain Cases of Transfer to Counteract Evasion of Tax". The purchase such as the one contemplated under Chapter XXII-A came to be called preemptive purchase by the State and eventually the provisions of Chapter XXII-A insofar they are related to immoveable properties ceased to operate after 30. 9. 86. The respondent as a member of the above mentioned Appropriate Authority was a signatory to the orders viz. (1) a no objection certificate dated 11. 2. 02 under Section 269 UL (3) of the Income Tax Act and (2) a purchase order under Section 269 UD (1) in another case on 27. 6. 02. It appears from the record that the CBI lodged an FIR on 14. 11. 03 in the context of the no objection certificate dated 11. 2. 02 against the respondent and others alleging commission of offence under Section 120 B read with Section 420 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A Second case came to be registered by the CBI in the context of the purchase order dated 27. 6. 02 referred to earlier which was registered as CC No. 26/06 on the file of the Principal Special Judge, CBI, Chennai. Eventually the case came to be registered as CC No. 23/06 before the Principal Special Judge, CBI, Chennai. The respondent was eventually discharged by an order of the above mentioned court dated 3. 4. 07. On 4. 10. 05 the 4th appellant issued a memorandum of charge under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against the respondent. The charge relates to the issuance of the no objection certificate dated 11. 2. 02, referred to earlier, the further details of the charge may not be relevant for the present. The respondent submitted his explanation on 7. 11. 05. On 24. 1. 06 the respondent submitted a representation that an early decision be taken on the charges framed against him as the respondent was due for promotion as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings would jeopardise his prospects of promotion. On 31. 1. 06 the DPC was convened. The decision regarding the suitability of the respondent for promotion was kept in a sealed cover in view of the pendency of the departmental proceeding. Some other officers were promoted. On 7. 2. 06 an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed in the context of the memorandum of charges dated 4. 10. 05. At that stage on 14. 6. 06 another memorandum of charges came to be issued against the respondent alleging misconduct in the context of the purchase order dated 27. 6. 02. On receipt of the above mentioned second memorandum of charges the respondent submitted his reply on 22. 6. 06. The disciplinary proceedings pursuant to both the above mentioned two memoranda of charges continued without any culmination.
(3.) IN the bove mentioned background the respondent filed OA No. 15/08 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench. By an interim order dated 30. 1. 08 the Tribunal permitted the appellants to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and also directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent herein for promotion to the next higher post. The above mentioned Original Application came to be disposed of by an order dated 8. 4. 08 directing that the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the two charge sheets referred to above dated 4. 10. 05 and 14. 6. 06 be disposed of expeditiously by the end of June, 2008. The order became final.;