it2025_00905 — Delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings on account of justifiable cause with ex post facto sanction of competent authority extending the time for completion of proceedings would not be treated as violative of the time schedule prescribed in Rule 14 (24) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965

IT Rules

Delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings on account of justifiable cause with ex post facto sanction of competent authority extending the time for completion of proceedings would not be treated as violative of the time schedule prescribed in Rule 14 (24) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 — This chunk discusses an original application (O.A. Nos. 339 of 2022) filed by a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against the Respondent on account of delayed disciplinary proceedings due to lack of ... — Facts: The Applicant, holding the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax since 2014 was slapped with a penalty charge memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 5-1-2021. The relied upon documents were not however, supplied to him and hence, while denying the charges levelled he had also requested the competent authority to provide him the certified copies of the documents. Without considering the aforesaid request, the Respondent proceeded to nominate IO and PO to conduct the inquiry. On the appointed date, he had requested the IO to make available the requisite relied upon documents but his request having remained unanswered the Applicant addressed formal written representation to the Inquiry Authority wherein the Applicant had inter alia taken stand that in view of the statutory provisions contained in sub-rule 24 (a),
(b) and
(c) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in the absence of any grant of extension of time, the Inquiry Authority ceases to have any authority to proceed with. On 9-9-2022, the Inquiry Officer issued the communication rejecting the Applicant's request on the ground of absence of power with the IO to extend the time. In the above circumstances, the Applicant filed this OA. While issuing notice to Respondent, interim stay on further departmental proceedings was granted till the next date. Thereafter, vide Order, dated 18-10-2022, copy of the post facto extension of time granted to complete the inquiry was filed with sur-rejoinder by the Respondent. After that, the Applicant preferred an M.A. No. 46 of 2023 to amend the prayers impugning this order. The MA was allowed, but the stay of proceedings was vacated. Question for consideration is, whether extension of time not having been issued on time, the same is not in tune with the provisions of Rule 14 (24) of the Rules. Reply filed by the Respondent reflects that a Letter, dated 20-3-2019 was issued asking the Applicant for his version. The Applicant vide his Letter, dated 8-4-2019 requested for copies of relevant documents to submit his version or explanation. The vigilance directorate vide its Letter, dated 3-5-2019 referred to the CVC's Vigilance Manual Vol. 1 to convey that the Inquiry Officer should try to obtain the version of facts from the delinquent and explanation as to why an inquiry should not be held and at that stage, there was no question of providing any document. However, the Respondents did provide opportunity to the Applicant to inspect relevant records although the first opportunity was not availed. Eventually the Applicant did avail of the opportunity to inspect the records on 13-2-2020 and 13-3-2020. After delay and some inter-communication, the Applicant's version was finally received on 20-9-2020. Thereupon, the Vigilance Directorate, Mumbai sent its report on 21-9-2020. Thereafter, first stage advice of CVC was sought in October, 2020. According to the Respondents, the Applicant had not submitted his written statement of defence against the charge Memorandum, dated 5-1-2021. However, Respondent department proceeded with further procedure of appointing Inquiry Officer. The amended charge memorandum is also on record. The reply contends that even if inquiry could not be completed during the stipulated period of six months, that by itself has no statutory consequence as it is only directory and not mandatory to complete the inquiry in the stipulated time. Thus inquiry cannot be challenged just because it could not be completed in one year. Rejoinder by the Applicant and sur-rejoinder by the Respondents were filed, reiterating their contention in the OA and reply respectively. The Tribunal allowed the M.A. No. 46 of 2023 on 1-2-2023 to carry out amendment in the OA. The Learned counsel for the Applicant mainly submitted that it was in 2019 that the authorities had informed the Applicant as to the report of the Vigilance Inspection surfacing the omissions and commissions in the work of the Applicant carried on during October, 2014 to May, 2005. The observations of vigilance inspection could at best have suggested some procedural deviations or irregularities. The department however, denied him the copies of the relevant records but stated that inspection of those relevant records could be provided. The same had been eventually done.

IT Rules

Delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings on account of justifiable cause with ex post facto sanction of competent authority extending the time for completion of proceedings would not be treated as violative of the time schedule prescribed in Rule 14 (24) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 — This chunk discusses an original application (O.A. Nos. 339 of 2022) filed by a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against the Respondent on account of delayed disciplinary proceedings due to lack of ... — Facts: The Applicant, holding the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax since 2014 was slapped with a penalty charge memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 5-1-2021. The relied upon documents were not however, supplied to him and hence, while denying the charges levelled he had also requested the competent authority to provide him the certified copies of the documents. Without considering the aforesaid request, the Respondent proceeded to nominate IO and PO to conduct the inquiry. On the appointed date, he had requested the IO to make available the requisite relied upon documents but his request having remained unanswered the Applicant addressed formal written representation to the Inquiry Authority wherein the Applicant had inter alia taken stand that in view of the statutory provisions contained in sub-rule 24 (a),
(b) and
(c) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in the absence of any grant of extension of time, the Inquiry Authority ceases to have any authority to proceed with. On 9-9-2022, the Inquiry Officer issued the communication rejecting the Applicant's request on the ground of absence of power with the IO to extend the time. In the above circumstances, the Applicant filed this OA. While issuing notice to Respondent, interim stay on further departmental proceedings was granted till the next date. Thereafter, vide Order, dated 18-10-2022, copy of the post facto extension of time granted to complete the inquiry was filed with sur-rejoinder by the Respondent. After that, the Applicant preferred an M.A. No. 46 of 2023 to amend the prayers impugning this order. The MA was allowed, but the stay of proceedings was vacated. Question for consideration is, whether extension of time not having been issued on time, the same is not in tune with the provisions of Rule 14 (24) of the Rules. Reply filed by the Respondent reflects that a Letter, dated 20-3-2019 was issued asking the Applicant for his version. The Applicant vide his Letter, dated 8-4-2019 requested for copies of relevant documents to submit his version or explanation. The vigilance directorate vide its Letter, dated 3-5-2019 referred to the CVC's Vigilance Manual Vol. 1 to convey that the Inquiry Officer should try to obtain the version of facts from the delinquent and explanation as to why an inquiry should not be held and at that stage, there was no question of providing any document. However, the Respondents did provide opportunity to the Applicant to inspect relevant records although the first opportunity was not availed. Eventually the Applicant did avail of the opportunity to inspect the records on 13-2-2020 and 13-3-2020. After delay and some inter-communication, the Applicant's version was finally received on 20-9-2020. Thereupon, the Vigilance Directorate, Mumbai sent its report on 21-9-2020. Thereafter, first stage advice of CVC was sought in October, 2020. According to the Respondents, the Applicant had not submitted his written statement of defence against the charge Memorandum, dated 5-1-2021. However, Respondent department proceeded with further procedure of appointing Inquiry Officer. The amended charge memorandum is also on record. The reply contends that even if inquiry could not be completed during the stipulated period of six months, that by itself has no statutory consequence as it is only directory and not mandatory to complete the inquiry in the stipulated time. Thus inquiry cannot be challenged just because it could not be completed in one year. Rejoinder by the Applicant and sur-rejoinder by the Respondents were filed, reiterating their contention in the OA and reply respectively. The Tribunal allowed the M.A. No. 46 of 2023 on 1-2-2023 to carry out amendment in the OA. The Learned counsel for the Applicant mainly submitted that it was in 2019 that the authorities had informed the Applicant as to the report of the Vigilance Inspection surfacing the omissions and commissions in the work of the Applicant carried on during October, 2014 to May, 2005. The observations of vigilance inspection could at best have suggested some procedural deviations or irregularities. The department however, denied him the copies of the relevant records but stated that inspection of those relevant records could be provided. The same had been eventually done.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text