Challenge to Reversion Becomes Infructuous Upon Restoration of Post and Finalization of Disciplinary Proceedings

The applicant, a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, filed this Original Application (OA) challenging Office Order No. 29 of 2019 dated February 14, 2019.

This order reverted him from the post of Joint Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax following a charge sheet dated April 6, 2018.

During the pendency of this OA, several developments occurred: the departmental proceedings concluded with a minor penalty of forfeiture of increment, which the applicant challenged before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal.

Furthermore, the respondent authorities issued a new order restoring the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner effective from January 1, 2026.

1. Whether the challenge against the reversion order survives for adjudication in light of the subsequent restoration of the applicant's rank and the pending litigation regarding the underlying penalty in another Bench.

The Tribunal applied the settled position of law regarding administrative matters which dictates that if, due to subsequent developments, the lis (dispute) between parties no longer survives and the principal relief is substantially granted, the matter becomes infructuous.

It further adhered to the principle that a Tribunal should not adjudicate on hypothetical issues or premature claims (such as the specific date of restoration) when such outcomes are contingent upon pending proceedings in a different forum.

The Tribunal observed that the primary grievance—the reversion from the post of Joint Commissioner—had been addressed by the respondents' subsequent order restoring the applicant to said post.

The applicant's counsel admitted that the principal relief had been rendered "otiose".

The Tribunal reasoned that it could not determine the correctness of the restoration date (January 1, 2026) because that issue is inextricably linked to the validity of the minor penalty and the charge memo, which are currently sub-judice before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal.

Since the substratum of the original dispute had shifted and the main relief was substantially realized, no live issue remained for the Patna Bench to resolve.

The OA was disposed of without any order as to costs, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were similarly closed.

The applicant’s rights regarding the effective date of restoration remain dependent on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Mumbai Bench.