Arvind Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) in the Income Tax Department. He was issued a charge memo dated 30.07.2020 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The allegation against him was that he allowed deduction of Rs.98,50,000/- in favour of M/s Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly, U/s 801B(10) of Income Tax Act, 1961, while working as ITO, Ward-I(1), Bareilly in the year 2011. It was alleged that the deduction could have been allowed, only if, the completion certificate was filed by the assesee and the Assessing Officer without mentioning the reasons, allowed deductions. In the statement of imputation, the detailed particulars are indicated. It was observed that the claim was disallowed for all the assessment years between 2007-08 and 2011-2012, and it was only in respect of the assessment of 2009-10 that an appeal was filed and the applicant herein allowed the same. This OA is filed challenging the said charge memo.

The applicant contends that the order passed by him was purely quasi-judicial in nature and there was no basis for the respondents to issue him the charge memo.

We heard Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant at the stage of admission.

It is no doubt true that the allegation was in relation to an order passed by the applicant in the quasi judicial capacity. The fact, however, remains that there cannot be any hard and fast rule as regard, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in relation to the orders passed in quasi-judicial proceedings. If the department is able to point out any serious infirmity or illegality, and point any extraordinary features, it can certainly be examined. At the same time, the approach is required to be a bit guarded. Mere existence of a second view cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings. In the instant case, the respondents pointed out some abnormal features. We do not propose to deal with the same lest it impacts the inquiry. We do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned charge memo. The applicant can offer his explanation. There is no reason to believe that the Disciplinary Authority would not appreciate the relevant facts.

We therefore, dismiss the OA. We, however, direct that in case any order of punishment is passed against the applicant, it shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from the date of communication. There shall no orders as to costs.

Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.