Sanjai Kumar Jain vs Income Tax Department

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
(Reserved on 25.09.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD

th
Pronounced on 28 day of October, 2026
Original Application No. 330/431 of 2021

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Sanjai Kumar Jain, aged about 61 years, son of, Sri Sanat Kumar Jain,
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
resident of, 15/245-D, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001,
Previously posted as Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Ward 4(2),
Farrrukhabad -U.P., but ordered to be removed from service w.e.f.
29.05.2020, vide an order of even date, passed by the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh following a disciplinary proceeding
under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 ....Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Shyamal Narain
VERSUS
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh-U.P./Disciplinary
Authority.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad-U.P./Appellate
Authority, as per the Penalty order.
4. The Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), 2nd Floor, Jawahar
Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110003/Appellate Authority, as per
letter dated 14.12.2020, issued by the Office of the Principal. Chief
Commissioner of IncomeTax, U.P. (West) & Uttarakhand.
5. Sri Radhey Shyam, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD),
Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad-U.P./Inquiry Officer
…… Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):
Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant
and Chakrapani Vatsyayan, assisted by Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
Page 1 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. To allow this O.A. and quash the impugned major penalty order
(F. No.PCIT/ITO (HQ)/Vig. /SKJ/2020-21/C-25) dated
29.05.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax, Aligarh/Disciplinary Authority, removing the applicant from
service w.e.f. 29.05.2020, along with all consequential benefit,
treating the impugned order as void ab initio or as having never
been passed.
II. Issue a suitable order or direction that following the quashing of
the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.05.2020, the
respondents shall treat the applicant as having been reinstated
in service w.e.f. 29.05.2020 with all consequential benefits,
including continuity of service and pay ment of all retiral
benefits, by treating him to have retired from service, upon
reaching the age of superannuation on, and w.e.f. 31.05.2020.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
III. Issue such other suitable orders or directions as might be found
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
IV. Award the costs of this original application in favour of the
applicant throughout.

3. The brief facts as narrated in the Original Application is that the
applicant joined the Income Tax Department as a Lower Division Clerk on
12.08.1985, and his service record remained unblemished, with his ACR
gradings consistently being “Outstanding” or “Very Good”. On 28.02.2018, a
false complaint was made by Shri Arvind Kumar Bharadwaj, alleging that the
applicant had demanded illegal gratification. At that time, the applicant was
posted as Income Tax Officer, Farrukhabad. Subsequently, a CBI trap was
organised on 06.03.2018, and the applicant was allegedly caught red-handed
while accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/- and was detained the following day.
On 07.03.2018, the applicant was arrested and CBI FIR Case Crime No.
RC0062018A0005 was registered against him under Section 120-B of the
IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
3.1 On 14.03.2018, the Disciplinary Authority deemed the applicant
to have been suspended w.e.f. 06.03.2018, and his suspension continued
until the removal order dated 29.05.2020. On 02.05.2018, the CBI filed the
charge-sheet before the designated CBI Court at Lucknow. On 03.08.2018,
sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Disciplinary Authority and
Page 2 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
forwarded to the CBI/ACB, Lucknow. Thereafter, the applicant was granted
bail by the High Court vide its order dated 05.12.2018. Subsequently, on
21.06.2019, a major penalty charge memorandum was issued under Rule 14
of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which was received by the applicant on
28.06.2019. The allegations and evidence contained therein were identical to
those in the CBI charge-sheet. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted his
reply to the charge memorandum on 04.07.2019.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
3.2 Thereafter, the respondents appointed the Presenting Officer
and the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 13.08.2019. The Inquiry Officer fixed
04.03.2020 as the first date of the inquiry proceedings vide letter dated
28.02.2020, i.e., more than six months after the appointment of the Inquiry
Officer. On 04.03.2020, the applicant appeared in the inquiry proceedings.
However, the hearing was adjourned to 12.03.2020 to enable him to arrange
for a Defence Assistant and evidence. On 12.03.2020, the applicant sought
an adjournment until 27.03.2020. Accordingly, vide letter dated 19.03.2020,
the Inquiry Officer fixed 27.03.2020 as the next date. Despite 27.03.2020
being the notified date, the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of the
complainant, Shri Arvind Kumar Bharadwaj, on 19.03.2020 behind the
applicant’s back, without prior notice that evidence would be recorded on that
date and without providing him an opportunity for cross-examination.
3.3 On 25.03.2020, a nationwide lockdown was commenced due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. On 26.03.2020, the applicant informed the Inquiry
Officer that travelling to Farrukhabad for the inquiry on 27.03.2020 was
impossible due to the lockdown restrictions. On 04.05.2020, the applicant
requested the Disciplinary Authority to stay the departmental proceedings
until the disposal of the criminal case. On the same day, the Inquiry Officer
issued a notice requiring the applicant to participate in the proceedings on
06.05.2020. Also on 04.05.2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Inquiry
Officer recorded the statement of the second important witness, Shri Pramod
Kumar Sharma, behind the applicant’s back, although 04.05.2020 was not a
notified date for the inquiry.
Page 3 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
3.4 On 18.05.2020, the Inquiry Officer initially fixed 03.06.2020 as
the next date of hearing but withdrew that communication on the same day
and preponed the inquiry to 21.05.2020, citing the Disciplinary Authority’s
direction to complete the inquiry before 25.05.2020 as the applicant’s
retirement on 31.05.2020. The statements of the two witnesses were
enclosed only at that stage. On 21.05.2020, the Inquiry Officer forwarded
voluminous documents stated to have been received from the Principal Chief
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Commissioner of Income Tax and the CBI and required the applicant to
appear in person on 22.05.2020 and comment on them. On 21.05.2020, the
applicant replied that he could not able to attend because of the lockdown
and objected to the use of the statements of the two witnesses, which had
been recorded without cross-examination. On 22.05.2020, the applicant
stated that the newly furnished documents were still under examination and
that less than 24 hours was wholly inadequate for this purpose, particularly
when he had not been allowed to cross-examine the complainant and the
other witness.
3.5 On 23.05.2020, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and
submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority, which forwarded it
to the applicant on the same day, requiring him to submit his representation
by 26.05.2020. In response, the applicant submitted his representation on
26.05.2020, specifically complaining of the denial of natural justice, denial of
the opportunity for cross-examination, the impossibility of attending the
proceedings due to the lockdown, and the inadequacy of the time granted.
He also sought an additional 15 days to submit a comprehensive response.
However, vide order dated 29.05.2020, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the
request for further time and imposed the major penalty of removal from
service, just two days before the applicant’s scheduled retirement.
3.6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid major penalty order dated
29.05.2020, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
280/2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2020, directing the
applicant to prefer a statutory departmental appeal and the Appellate
Page 4 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
Authority to decide the same within two months. In compliance with the said
order, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal against the removal order on
22.07.2020 before the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, on 14.12.2020, the
office of the Principal Chief Commissioner informed the applicant that the
competent Appellate Authority was the Director General of Income Tax
(Vigilance) and forwarded the departmental appeal accordingly. However,
the statutory departmental appeal remained undecided until the filing of the
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
present Original Application on 29.06.2021, and more than six months had
elapsed since the communication dated 14.12.2020. Hence, the present O.A.
was filed seeking adjudication on merits and quashing of the penalty order.
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondents on 30.09.2024, wherein it has been stated that the applicant
had prepared a preparatory note for seeking permission from the
complainant, Shri Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj, but the same was neither
submitted to the senior officers nor was any approval obtained in this regard.
The said preparatory note was intentionally withheld by the applicant, and
under the cover of the same, the applicant conspired with Shri Pramod
Kumar Sharma, Advocate, and both entered into a conversation with the
complainant and successfully created an impression in his mind that he
should deliver the bribe money to them. These facts disclosed the
commission of offences by the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma,
Advocate, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
criminal and departmental proceedings are different in nature, and the
penalties/punishments imposed in these proceedings are also different.
There is no bar to initiating departmental proceedings subsequently if the
same were not initiated earlier.
4.1 The Disciplinary Authority has been vested with the powers to
discharge its statutory duties and obligations by initiating appropriate
departmental proceedings, and it is not open to the Disciplinary Authority to
await the outcome of the investigation by the investigating/prosecuting
agency or the decision of the Court in the criminal trial. The Disciplinary
Page 5 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
Authority duly considered the written submissions of the applicant and
thereafter appointed the Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer vide
order dated 13.08.2019 to conduct a proper inquiry. A copy of the inquiry
letter, along with the statements of the complainant and Shri P.K. Sharma,
was issued to the applicant on 18.05.2020. On the date fixed by the Inquiry
Officer, the applicant sent an email stating that he and his Defence Assistant
were unable to appear before the Inquiry Officer due to the lockdown, as no
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
train or bus services were available to enable them to reach the office and
offer their comments on the statements of Shri Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj, the
complainant, and Shri P.K. Sharma, Advocate. While submitting his reply
through email, the applicant could have rebutted the contents of the
statements made by the complainant and Shri P.K. Sharma by submitting a
written representation. However, he failed to do so and did not avail himself
of that opportunity.
4.2 As per Office Order No. 34-9/207 dated 27.09.2007 of the
Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, the Inquiry Authority must
complete the departmental proceedings before the retirement of the public
servant. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer preponed the date of compliance from
30.06.2020 to 21.05.2020, as the applicant was due to retire on 31.05.2020.
The applicant was provided with an opportunity to offer his comments on the
statements of both witnesses. However, he did not submit any comments.
4.3 As per CVC Circular No. 08.07.2018 dated 31.07.2018, the
Disciplinary Authority may withhold departmental proceedings only in
exceptional cases where the charges in the criminal trial involve complicated
questions of law and fact. However, the applicant was unable to establish
that any complicated questions of law and fact were involved in his case. He
also failed to provide any justification for staying the departmental
proceedings. In view of the same, the Disciplinary Authority found no merit in
the application dated 04.05.2020 filed by the applicant and rejected the same
vide letter dated 21.05.2020.
Page 6 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
4.4 The Inquiry Officer fixed the matter for hearing on 04.03.2020,
12.03.2020, 27.03.2020, 04.05.2020, and 21.05.2020, but the applicant
chosen not to avail himself of any of the opportunities of being heard. The
applicant stated that he could not comply with the directions due to the
lockdown; however, he did not submit his reply by email or through any other
mode. After submission of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority rightly
passed the impugned order removing the applicant from service. Hence, the
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, a rejoinder affidavit was filed by the applicant on
27.02.2025, reiterating the averments made in the Original Application.
However, it is stated that the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the
complainant as well as Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma ex-parte, who had
allegedly managed the entire conspiracy against the applicant, and held the
charges against the applicant to be proved. It is an admitted position that the
Inquiry Officer did not intimate the applicant before recording the statements
of the witnesses and the complainant. Despite the applicant’s request, he
was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and the
witness. If judicial proceedings are initiated on the basis of the same set of
charges, relied-upon documents, and witnesses, the departmental
proceedings ought to be kept in abeyance until the outcome of the judicial
proceedings.
6. During the pendency of the Original Application, Misc.
Application No. 4848/2026 (Stay Application) was filed by the learned
counsel for the applicant, with a prayer that the respondents be expressly
and strictly restrained from proceeding further with the matter of deciding the
applicant’s departmental appeal dated 22.07.2020, preferred against the
penalty of removal from service dated 29.05.2020, since the said appellate
proceedings had long since abated and no longer had any existence in the
eyes of law, and the validity and legality of the same penalty order were then
poised for final adjudication before this Tribunal.
Page 7 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
6.1 It is stated in the said stay application that, after waiting for a
long period for the decision on his appeal, the applicant approached this
Tribunal by way of the present Original Application, challenging the penalty
order dated 29.05.2020. The present Original Application was admitted vide
order dated 30.06.2021, and notices were issued to the respondents for filing
a counter affidavit. Since this Tribunal had already admitted the aforesaid
O.A. and had become actively seized of the matter after taking cognizance
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
thereof, the appellate proceedings pending before the Appellate Authority
prior to the admission of the O.A., in terms of the express provisions of
Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, stood automatically
abated. Save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, the said appeal dated
22.07.2020, which had been referred to the Appellate Authority for decision,
could no longer be entertained or decided by the Appellate Authority.
6.2 The representation was dispatched on 12.07.2021, but nothing
further was heard regarding the applicant’s appeal, either from the Appellate
Authority or from any other source, leading the applicant to believe that the
averments made in his representation had been duly considered, heeded,
and accepted.
6.3. At this belated stage, when the applicant’s O.A., admitted as far
back as 30.06.2021, is now on the verge of being decided by the Tribunal on
merits, and nearly five years after the appellate proceedings allegedly stood
abated in terms of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
the applicant has been served with letters dated 30.07.2026 and 04.08.2026,
purporting to furnish him with an Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2026. By
the said communication, the applicant has been supplied with a copy of the
advice of the UPSC dated 22.05.2026, given in connection with his appeal,
and has been called upon to submit his representation against the same
before the appellate proceedings are taken further.
6.4 The appellate proceedings, which the respondents have sought
to revive unilaterally after the lapse of six years and in which they are now
Page 8 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
calling upon the applicant to participate, allegedly stood abated more than
five years ago and are no longer in existence.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned orders
on the following grounds:-
a) At this belated stage, when the present Original Application has
already been admitted by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2021
and is pending adjudication on merits, the respondents are seeking to
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
proceed with the applicant’s statutory appeal dated 22.07.2020
against the impugned penalty order dated 29.05.2020 in view of
advice of UPSC.
b) Upon admission of the Original Application, the appellate proceedings
stood abated by operation of law in terms of Section 19(4) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and, therefore, the Appellate
Authority cannot proceed to decide the said appeal at this belated
stage, particularly when the legality and validity of the very same
penalty order are already under consideration before this Tribunal.
After waiting for a considerable period for a decision on his appeal as
per the order of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No.280/2020, the
approached this Tribunal and, thereafter, the respondents remained
silent for several years. However, after the lapse of more than five
years from the admission of the Original Application, the respondents
issued communications dated 30.07.2026 and 04.08.2026, forwarding
the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2026 along with the advice of the
UPSC dated 22.05.2026 and calling upon the applicant to submit his
representation before proceeding further with the appellate
proceedings. Therefore, such action amounts to an attempt to revive
appellate proceedings which had already abated under Section 19(4)
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
c) The respondents should not be permitted to proceed with the said
appeal during the pendency of the present Original Application.
Page 9 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
d) On merits, the entire departmental inquiry stands vitiated on account
of serious violations of the principles of natural justice and denial of a
fair and effective opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer
recorded the statements of the complainant, Shri Arvind Kumar
Bharadwaj, and the other material witness, Shri Pramod Kumar
Sharma, behind the applicant’s back and without prior intimation that
their statements would be recorded on the dates in question. Despite
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
the applicant’s request, neither the complainant nor the other material
witness was made available for cross-examination. The applicant was
thus deprived of an effective opportunity to test the veracity of the
allegations and the evidence relied upon against him. The denial of
the opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses, whose
statements formed the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Officer, goes to the root of the inquiry and vitiates the proceedings.
e) The inquiry proceedings were conducted on dates that had not been
duly notified for the recording of evidence. In particular, although
27.03.2020 had been fixed as the next date of hearing, the Inquiry
Officer recorded the statement of the complainant on 19.03.2020
without notifying the applicant that evidence would be recorded on that
date. Similarly, the statement of Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma was
recorded on 04.05.2020 without adequate prior notice that his
evidence would be recorded on that date. The notice of the date,
place and nature of the hearing is not a mere procedural formality but
an essential requirement for ensuring a meaningful opportunity of
hearing. A delinquent employee cannot reasonably be expected to
appear for cross-examination on a date that has not been notified for
the recording of evidence. The subsequent supply of the statements
could not cure the prejudice caused by denying the applicant an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when their statements
were recorded.
Page 10 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
f) The entire episode occurred during the COVID-19 lockdown, when
travelling to Farrukhabad and coordinating with the Defence Assistant
were materially constrained. The applicant had specifically informed
the Inquiry Officer of the difficulties in attending the proceedings owing
to the lockdown and the non-availability of public transport. Despite
these circumstances, the inquiry was expedited and abruptly
concluded on 23.05.2020.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
g) The applicant’s inability to attend the proceedings in person under
such exceptional circumstances could not have been treated as a
waiver of his right to defend himself, particularly when he had raised
specific objections regarding the recording of evidence in his absence
and the denial of an opportunity for cross-examination.
h) At the fag end of the inquiry, voluminous additional documents
received from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and
the CBI were furnished to the applicant on 21.05.2020, and he was
directed to appear on 22.05.2020 to examine and comment upon the
same. Thus, the applicant was afforded less than 24 hours to examine
the documents and prepare his response. It is contended that such an
unreasonably short period was wholly inadequate, particularly in view
of the volume of documents, the lockdown restrictions and the
absence of an effective opportunity to consult his Defence Assistant.
The applicant had specifically informed the authorities that the
documents required proper examination and that the time granted was
insufficient. Nevertheless, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to conclude
the inquiry on 23.05.2020 without granting reasonable additional time
to the applicant to submit his defence.
i) The Inquiry Officer relied upon the statements of the complainant and
Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, as well as documents received from the
CBI, without ensuring that the evidence was properly tested in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Page 11 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
j) The evidence which has not been subjected to a fair and effective
process of examination and challenge cannot be treated as reliable
merely because it has been reproduced or referred to in the inquiry
report. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, therefore, cannot
safely form the foundation of a major penalty, particularly when the
applicant was denied an effective opportunity to challenge the oral and
documentary evidence relied upon against him.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
k) The applicant had requested the Disciplinary Authority on 04.05.2020
to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance until the disposal
of the criminal case, as both proceedings arose out of the same set of
allegations and substantially relied upon the same evidence and
witnesses. It is submitted that, in the circumstances of the present
case, the simultaneous continuation of the departmental inquiry and
the criminal prosecution, coupled with the denial of an effective
opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceedings, caused
serious prejudice to the applicant. However, the request was rejected,
and the inquiry was completed in undue haste before the applicant’s
scheduled date of superannuation on 31.05.2020.
l) Despite the applicant having submitted his representation against the
inquiry report on 26.05.2020, specifically raising objections regarding
the denial of natural justice, the absence of cross-examination, the
lockdown-related difficulties and the inadequacy of the time granted to
examine the additional documents, the Disciplinary Authority rejected
his request for further time and passed the impugned order dated
29.05.2020, removing him from service just two days before his
scheduled retirement. Therefore, the haste with which the inquiry was
concluded, the denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself
and the failure to adequately consider his objections rendered the
impugned penalty order unsustainable in law.
Page 12 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
m) The impugned order dated 29.05.2020 is liable to be quashed and set
aside, with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service
and retiral benefits, treating the applicant as having retired on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020.
n) Learned counsel for the applicant placed heavy reliance on the
following order/judgments:-
i. In case of Dhirendra Chandra Debnath Vs. Union of India in CAT
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Kolkata Bench.
ii. In case of Shiv Kumar B. Nair Vs. Union of India passed by CAT
Bombay Bench
iii. In case of Yashvi Parekh Vs. Administration passed by CAT
Patna Bench.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents raised
a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Misc. Application
No. 4848/2026 (Stay Application) and opposed the prayer made therein and
submitted as under:-
a) The applicant’s statutory appeal dated 22.07.2020 against the penalty
order dated 29.05.2020 was duly preferred before the competent
authority and that the appellate proceedings are being pursued in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. The mere admission of the
present Original Application vide order dated 30.06.2021 does not, by
itself, render the pending statutory appeal non-existent or prevent the
competent Appellate Authority from discharging its statutory functions,
unless such a consequence follows from the applicable statutory
provisions or an order passed by this Tribunal.
b) The applicant’s contention that the statutory departmental appeal
automatically stood abated under Section 19(4) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, is misconceived. The respondents have merely
proceeded with the consideration of the appeal and furnished the
applicant with a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC, calling
Page 13 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
upon him to submit his representation before a final decision is taken.
The aforesaid action is part of the prescribed appellate process and
cannot, by itself, be construed as an attempt to revive proceedings
that have ceased to exist.
c) The communications dated 30.07.2026 and 04.08.2026, along with the
Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2026 and the UPSC advice dated
22.05.2026, were issued to provide the applicant an opportunity to
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
submit his representation before the Appellate Authority proceeds
further. Rather than causing any prejudice to the applicant, the said
opportunity enables him to place his objections on record before a
final decision is taken on his appeal.
d) The applicant cannot seek to prevent the Appellate Authority from
completing the statutory appellate process merely because the
present Original Application challenging the penalty order is pending
before this Tribunal.
e) The impugned penalty order dated 29.05.2020 had been passed in
accordance with the applicable rules and after following the prescribed
procedure. The criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings
are distinct in nature and serve different purposes. The standards
governing the two proceedings and the consequences arising
therefrom are also different. Therefore, there is no legal bar to
initiating or continuing departmental proceedings merely because
criminal proceedings arising out of the same allegations are pending
before a competent court.
f) The Disciplinary Authority is under a statutory obligation to initiate and
conclude appropriate departmental proceedings and is not required to
await the outcome of the criminal trial in every case.
g) The Disciplinary Authority duly considered the written submissions
made by the applicant and thereafter appointed the Inquiry Officer and
the Presenting Officer vide order dated 13.08.2019 to conduct the
Page 14 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
departmental inquiry. The applicant was afforded opportunities to
participate in the inquiry proceedings and to submit his defence. A
copy of the inquiry communication, along with the statements of the
complainant, Shri Arvind Kumar Bharadwaj, and Shri P.K. Sharma,
was forwarded to the applicant on 18.05.2020. The applicant was also
given an opportunity to offer his comments on the statements of the
said witnesses.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
h) On the date fixed by the Inquiry Officer, the applicant sent an email
stating that he and his Defence Assistant were unable to appear
before the Inquiry Officer due to the lockdown and the non-availability
of train and bus services. However, the applicant could have
submitted his comments or rebuttal to the statements of the
complainant and Shri P.K. Sharma through email or by any other
available mode. Despite having been afforded such an opportunity,
the applicant did not submit his comments on the statements of the
witnesses. Therfore, the applicant cannot attribute the failure to
participate effectively in the inquiry proceedings solely to the
respondents.
i) In view of the applicant’s impending retirement on 31.05.2020, the
Inquiry Officer was required to conclude the departmental proceedings
before his retirement, in accordance with the relevant instructions of
the Central Vigilance Commission. It is contended that the inquiry was
expedited for this reason and that the applicant was afforded
opportunities to participate in the proceedings and submit his defence.
The respondents, therefore, deny that the inquiry was concluded
arbitrarily or without affording the applicant a reasonable opportunity of
hearing.
j) The applicant’s request dated 04.05.2020 for keeping the
departmental proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of the
Page 15 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
criminal case was duly considered by the competent authority and
rejected vide letter dated 21.05.2020.
k) As regards the allegation that the statements of the complainant and
the other witness were recorded behind the applicant’s back is
concerned, the copies of the statements were subsequently supplied
to the applicant and that he was given an opportunity to submit his
comments thereon. However, the applicant failed to avail himself of
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
that opportunity. The respondents, therefore, contend that the
applicant’s allegations of denial of natural justice and procedural
irregularity are not sustainable.
l) After considering the inquiry report and the material available on
record, the Disciplinary Authority rightly passed the impugned order
dated 29.05.2020, imposing the penalty of removal from service upon
the applicant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality
or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the
Original Application be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
9. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned
counsel for both the parties and perused the records, it appears that the
applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 280/2020,
which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2020, with a direction to the
applicant to prefer a statutory appeal against the impugned penalty order and
to the competent Appellate Authority to decide the same within a period of
two months. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred a
statutory appeal on 22.07.2020. Subsequently, vide communication dated
14.12.2020, the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
informed the applicant that the competent Appellate Authority was the
Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) and forwarded the appeal to the
said authority. However, as the appeal remained undecided, the applicant
instituted the present Original Application on 29.06.2021, seeking, inter alia,
Page 16 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
quashing of the penalty order dated 29.05.2020. The present Original
Application was admitted on 30.06.2021 and has remained pending before
this Tribunal.
10. The principal issue that arises for consideration at this stage is
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled
to prevent the competent Appellate Authority from proceeding with the
statutory appeal on the ground that the present Original Application has
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
already been admitted and that, according to the applicant, the statutory
appeal stood abated by operation of Section 19(4) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
11. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
provides that where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under
Sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as a
redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of such application
pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as
otherwise directed by the Tribunal , no appeal or representation in relation
to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules .
12. The said provision, however, contains the expression “save as
otherwise directed by the Tribunal” . The scope and effect of this provision
have to be considered in the context of the earlier order passed by this
Tribunal, the statutory appellate remedy available to the applicant and the
subsequent developments in the matter. The effect of the aforesaid provision
has to be considered in the context of the facts of the present case,
particularly the earlier order dated 15.07.2020 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 280/2020.
13. From perusal of the earlier order passed by this Tribunal in
O.A. No.280/2020, it appears that the applicant was directed to avail himself
of the statutory appellate remedy and the Appellate Authority was, in turn,
directed to decide the appeal within a period of two months. The applicant
thereafter preferred the appeal in compliance with the said direction.
Page 17 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
Significantly, the earlier order does not stipulate that, in the event of the
appeal not being decided within the prescribed period, the appeal would
automatically stand abated or that the jurisdiction of the competent Appellate
Authority to decide the same would cease. Nor does the said order record
any finding that the failure to decide the appeal within two months would
render the appellate proceedings non est. Therefore, the mere expiry of the
period stipulated in the earlier order cannot, by itself, be treated as
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
conclusive of the question whether the statutory appeal ceased to be
maintainable.
14. It is also relevant to note that the statutory appeal was
preferred before the competent authority and was subsequently forwarded to
the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), who was identified as the
competent Appellate Authority. The subsequent communications dated
30.07.2026 and 04.08.2026, read with the Office Memorandum dated
14.07.2026 and the advice of the Union Public Service Commission dated
22.05.2026, indicate that the appeal is under consideration and that the
applicant has been called upon to submit his representation on the advice
tendered by the Commission before a final decision is taken. Thus, the
material available on record does not indicate that the respondents have
abandoned the appellate proceedings; rather, it reflects that the process of
consideration of the statutory appeal is being pursued.
15. Further even where the matter had remained pending before
the Court for substantial period there was nothing wrong or illegal in
relegating the party to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the
Rule. There can be no issue that the Appellate Authority would be having
wider scope and jurisdiction as compared to this Tribunal and therefore,
apparently no prejudice can be caused to the applicant. It is also an admitted
fact that there is no interim order operative in favour of the applicant during
the pendency of this Original Application. Similar issue fell for consideration
before the Allahabad High Court in case of Sitaram Vishwakarma Vs.
Page 18 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
Engineer in Chief, PWD and Others , reported in (2012) 8 ADJ 574 (DB).
Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted as under:-
The second argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that
the Writ Court ought to have heard the petition on merits also
cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal preposition that
where an alternative remedy is available, the Writ Court would be
slow in entertaining the petitions directly. Further even where the
matter had remained pending before the Writ Court for
substantial period there was nothing wrong or illegal in relegating
the party to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the
statute. There can be no issue that the Appellate Authority would
be having wider scope and jurisdiction as compared to the writ
jurisdiction and, therefore, apparently no prejudice can be
caused to the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that there is no
interim order operative in favour of the appellant during the
pendency of the writ petition.
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA

16. In these circumstances, and having regard to the earlier
direction issued by this Tribunal, we are not inclined to interdict the ongoing
appellate proceedings at this stage. The applicant's contention regarding the
applicability and effect of Section 19(4) does not, in the facts of the present
case, furnish sufficient ground for granting the interim protection sought in
M.A. No. 4848/2026. It would be appropriate that the competent Appellate
Authority is permitted to bring the statutory appellate proceedings to their
logical conclusion in accordance with law, instead of keeping the matter
pending indefinitely. It is settled law that the Appellate Authority has co-
extensive power to reappreciate the evidence and the penalty, which a court
or tribunal in judicial review does not.
17. At the same time, the fact remains that the statutory
departmental appeal has remained undecided for a considerable period,
notwithstanding the earlier direction of this Tribunal requiring its disposal
within two months. The pendency of the departmental appeal for such a
prolonged period cannot be overlooked. The subsequent steps taken by the
respondents, including obtaining the advice of the Union Public Service
Commission and calling upon the applicant to submit his representation
thereon, must now be carried forward to their logical conclusion without any
further avoidable delay. The applicant shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to submit his representation, if not already submitted, and the
Page 19 of 20

OA No. 330/431 of 2021
same shall be duly considered by the competent Appellate Authority before
passing the final order. The judgment relied upon the counsel for the
applicant is not applicable in the instant case.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the impugned penalty order dated 29.05.2020 or the
grounds raised by the applicant in the present Original Application, we deem
it appropriate to dispose of the matter with a direction to the competent
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Appellate Authority to consider the representation, if any, submitted by the
applicant in response to the advice tendered by the Union Public Service
Commission and thereafter decide the statutory appeal dated 22.07.2020 by
passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, preferably
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
19. The applicant shall extend necessary cooperation in the
appellate proceedings and submit his representation, if not already
submitted, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It
is clarified that the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal independently,
in accordance with law and on the basis of the material available on record,
without being influenced by any observation made herein.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application as well as M.A. No.
4848/2026 (Stay Application) stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
21. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
22. No order as to costs.

( Anjani Nandan Sharan ) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)

PM/
Page 20 of 20