Pankaj Gupta vs M/o Finance

1

(Reserved on 02.09.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Through video conferencing)
th
this the 15 day of October , 2026
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Original Application No. 971 of 2015
Pankaj Gupta, S/o Shri K.N. Gupta, DOB – 11.07.1980, Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, R/o S-2, Income Tax Colony, Arjun
Complex, Napier Town, Jabalpur (MP). …….Applicant

Advocate for the applicant: Shri Samveg Tripathi, holding brief of Shri
Vijay Tripathi
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of
India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
st
3. The Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), 1 Floor,
Dayal Public Library Building, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi.
4. Shri L.K.S Dhaiya, The then Additional Director (Vigilance)
st
through Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), 1 Floor,
Dayal Public Library Building, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi.
………..Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Satyendra Kumar Patel
Page 1 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

2
O R D E R
By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-
The present original application has been directed against the
charge sheet dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure A-1).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that while the applicant was
posted as Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Indore an FIR was
lodged by the CBI as a consequence of trap. Thereafter, charge sheet
was filed before the CBI Court. Simultaneously, a charge sheet dated
09.09.2009 was also served by the respondents for the same set of
allegations. The applicant denied the allegation. Having not satisfied
with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for departmental
inquiry by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.
Thereafter, the applicant preferred representation dated 30.04.2012
for staying the disciplinary proceedings till the outcome of the
criminal case. As the respondent did not consider the above
representation , he filed O.A. No.470/2012 and the Tribunal stayed
the disciplinary proceedings till December, 2013 (Annexure-A/3).
3. The applicant has also preferred representation dated
08.09.2014 (Annexure A-5) alleging that the Disciplinary Authority
has not applied his mind while approving the charge sheet and
Page 2 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

3
sought approval of the Finance Minister in a mechanical manner.
The said representation of applicant was rejected vide order dated
10.12.2014 (Annexure-A/6). However, he was advised to approach
the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the applicant submitted
representation dated 11.02.2015 before the Enquiry Officer which
was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure A/8).
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that
charge sheet issued to the applicant is illegal and proceedings have
been conducted in an arbitrary and biased manner. The learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that the approval given by
the Finance Minister is not in accordance with law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Coal India Ltd and others Vs. Ananta Shah, (2011) 5
SCC 142 . The office of DGIT (Vig.) without drawing the charge sheet
and taking approval of the same from the Finance Minister, who is
the disciplinary authority in his case, sought first Stage Advise from
Central Vigilance Commission and in turn, the Central Vigilance
Commission tendered a communication dated 02.12.2008 which the
respondent no. 3 has treated as first stage advice. The learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondents have
not followed the circular issued by the CVC according to which the
Page 3 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

4
draft charge-sheet must be accompanied with the comments of the
Disciplinary Authority for seeking first stage advice of CVC. In the
present case, the applicant has been prejudiced since the
communication of the CVC to initiate major penalty proceedings has
been received and the DGIT (vigilance) has treated the same as first
stage advice and prepared the Charge Memo for getting the approval
of the Finance Minister, and while doing so the established
procedure was not properly followed. Hence the entire disciplinary
proceeding is vitiated.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted
that at the time of obtaining the permission for initiation of
departmental proceeding, the approval of charge memo and first
stage of advice, the relevant documents and statement were not
supplied to the applicant along with the charge-sheet dated
09.09.2009. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has
contended that the action of the respondents in issuing charge-sheet
is totally arbitrary, unjust and has been issued without following the
rules and circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission.

6. Upon notice, the respondents have filed reply denying the
claim of the applicant primarily on the ground that there is no case
Page 4 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

5
of the applicant at this stage, because the disciplinary proceedings
under challenge have not been finalized, nor any penalty has been
imposed on him.

7. On merits, the learned counsel for the respondents has
contended that after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Inquiry Officer has passed a speaking order dated 06.04
2015. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted
that as per office order dated 19.07.2005 issued by Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, for reference to CVC for First Stage
Advice in respect of officers up to the level of Commissioner, the
Chairman CBDT is empowered to do so. Therefore, advice of the CVC
was taken as per the law and the charge sheet has been issued after
observing all the legal formalities. The learned counsel for the
respondents has also submitted that during the pendency of this
OA, the applicant has been convicted in a criminal case by the
Special Court of CBI vide order dated 16.12.2022. A show cause
notice under rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 has been
issued on 03.02.2023 and in response thereto, the applicant has
filed his reply/ representation on 09.03.2023. Thereafter, vide order
dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure MA-1) the penalty of dismissal from
Page 5 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

6
service has been imposed by the Hon’ble President of India. Thus,
the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
present OA does not survive and has prayed to dismiss the same.

8. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings as well.

9. It is not disputed that the applicant was trapped by the CBI
and a criminal case was lodged against him in Special Court of CBI.
Based on same set of facts and the documents as well as witnesses,
the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 09.09.2009
under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 which has been challenged
in the present OA mainly on the ground that the procedure for
obtaining the advice of the CVC after approval of the disciplinary
authority has not been followed. The DGIT (Vigilance) without
approval of the Finance Minister, who is the disciplinary authority in
the subject case, sought first stage advice from the CVC. The CVC
tendered the advice dated 02.12.2008 even when the approval of the
Finance Minister had not been taken. When the matter was taken
up on 30.11.2015 by this Tribunal, the respondents were restrained
from proceeding in the disciplinary enquiry in respect of the charge
Page 6 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

7
sheet dated 09.09.2009. During the pendency of the present original
application, the criminal case No. 1/2009 filed against the applicant
was decided by the Special Court CBI vide order dated 16.12.2022 in
which the applicant was convicted. Thereafter, the respondents
department issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2023. Para 2 of
the show cause notice is reproduced below: -
“2. AND WHEREAS, the President proposes to award the
penalty of removal/dismissal from Government Service on the
said Shri Pankaj Gupta, ACIT (04039) under Rule 19(i) of the
Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule
1965, taking into account the gravity of the criminal charges.”

10. The applicant filed his reply/ representation to the aforesaid
show cause notice on 09.03.2023 (Annexure IA-2) requesting for
keeping the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that his appeal
challenging the order passed by the Trial Court is pending before
Hon’ble High Court of M.P and the sentence awarded by the Trial
Court has been suspended. Thereafter, the applicant was awarded
the penalty of dismissal from service under order dated 21.02.2024.

11. Now, the main issue before us as to whether the issue
involved in the present OA is liable to be adjudicated after the
penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed under Rule 19 of
CCS (CCA) Rules 1965?
Page 7 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

8

12. The charge sheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 14
of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. However, the further proceeding
pursuant to the said charge sheet were stayed by this Tribunal vide
order dated 30.11.2015. During the pendency of this original
application, the applicant got convicted by the Special Court of CBI
in the criminal case lodged against him by the CBI. Thereafter, the
respondents department initiated action against the applicant under
Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 which is being reproduced below: -
“ 19. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES:
Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the
ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to
hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security
of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner
provided in these rules,
the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the
case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity
of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed
before any order is made in a case under clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where
such consultation is necessary *[and the Government servant has
been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the
Page 8 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

9
Commission,] before any orders are made in any case under this
.”
rule

13. From the above, it is clear that the applicant has been
awarded the punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 19 of
CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 . It is noted that before inflicting the penalty,
the applicant was served with a show cause notice and in response
thereto he gave his representation. Thus, in view of the provisions
laid down under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, there is no
scope for separate proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, the Original
Application challenging the charge sheet does not survive and has
become infructuous, after imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary
Authority i.e. ‘dismissal from service’. A charge sheet is merely a
show-cause notice or an intermediate step in the disciplinary
proceedings. Once a final order of penalty is passed, the
intermediate stage merges into the final order. Courts and
Tribunals generally do not adjudicate a challenge to a charge sheet
after a final penalty order has been passed and implemented. The
original charge sheet was issued for initiation of a regular
departmental inquiry. However, penalty of dismissal was imposed
based on his criminal conviction . There is a separate legal
Page 9 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY

10
mechanism which allows authorities to bypass the regular inquiry
procedure and dismiss an employee summarily based solely on a
judicial conviction as per Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules).

14. In view of the forgoing discussions, we do not find any ground
to interfere with the impugned charge sheet dated 09.09.2009.
Accordingly, the OA No. 971/2015 is dismissed. Consequently, the
interim order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Tribunal is also
vacated.
15. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.
16. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand…


Page 10 of 10
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:03:55+05'30'
DUBEY