CAT Orders Six-Week Decision On Tax Officer’s Appeal Against Removal Two Days Before Retirement

The applicant, an Income Tax Officer, was removed from service by a penalty order dated 29 May 2020, following a departmental inquiry arising from allegations of bribery.

He challenged the removal before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 280/2020; on 15 July 2020, the Tribunal directed him to file a statutory appeal and the Appellate Authority to decide it within two months.

The applicant appealed on 22 July 2020, but the appeal remained undecided. He then filed the present O.A., challenging the penalty order; it was admitted on 30 June 2021.

In 2026, the respondents forwarded UPSC advice to the applicant and invited his representation before deciding the appeal. The applicant sought to restrain that process, contending that the appeal had abated under Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that, upon admission of an application, proceedings under the relevant service rules pending in relation to the same subject matter abate, and—“save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal”—no appeal or representation under those rules may thereafter be entertained.

The Tribunal also relied on Sitaram Vishwakarma v. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, (2012) 8 ADJ 574 (DB), for the principle that a party may be relegated to an available appellate remedy even after a matter has remained pending before a court, and that the appellate authority may have a wider scope of review.

The Tribunal stated that an appellate authority can reappreciate the evidence and penalty, unlike a court or tribunal exercising judicial review.

The Tribunal considered the earlier direction in O.A. No. 280/2020, which required the applicant to pursue his statutory appeal and the Appellate Authority to decide it within two months. That order did not provide that the appeal would automatically abate, or that the Appellate Authority’s jurisdiction would cease if the deadline passed.

The later communications showed that the appeal was still under consideration, with the applicant invited to respond to UPSC advice; the Tribunal found no basis to treat the appeal as abandoned or to prevent its completion.

Given the earlier direction, the availability of the statutory appeal, and the absence of an interim order in the applicant’s favour, it declined to intervene in the appellate process. It did not determine the merits of the removal order or the applicant’s procedural-fairness grounds.

The applicant was directed to submit any outstanding representation within two weeks.

The appeal was to be decided independently, without influence from the Tribunal’s observations; the O.A. and stay application were disposed of without any determination on the merits of the penalty order and with no order as to costs.