CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.411/2010
WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
M.K.Chakravarthy,
S/o (late) M.M.Chakravarthy,
Aged about 76 years,
Retired Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar,
Resident of Gurukrupa Nilayam,
Ground Floor, Door No.2, Belathur,
Whitefield – Hoskote Road, Kadugudi Post,
Bangalore – 560 067. ...Applicant
(By Advocate B.Veerabhadra)
Vs.
1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar,
Bhubaneswar,
2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Saikia Commercial Complex,
Sreenagar, GS Road,
Guwahati – 781 005.
3. The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)
O R D E R (ORAL)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
Heard the Counsel on both sides. The crux of this case is that the applicant who was Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at that time and has retired in 1993 was served with a charge memo on 21.9.1992, which is nearly 8 months prior to his retirement alleging 4 articles of charges. The
- 2 -
inquiry officer was appointed on 30.10.2002 after 10 years from the date of charge sheet and the inquiry was conducted as exparte as the applicant has not remained present during the inquiry. He would claim that he was bedridden and suffering from serious illness. Since three out of four charges are held as proved, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order at Annexure A15. The IO's report was submitted vide letter dated 3.6.2005 and the penalty order was issued on 23.1.2008 which is again after a delay of 3 years.
2. The learned Counsel for applicant has argued that such an enormous delay both for appointing the Inquiry Officer and also for acting upon the report of Inquiry Officer cannot be justified. We ourselves feel that such a delay does not speak of any seriousness of the matter. The articles of charge themselves are not very serious and hence the impugned order must be quashed. The learned Counsel for respondents has very graciously agreed that with such enormous delay there is no much justification in imposing any penalty.
3. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. We also find that the applicant had made an interim prayer which is granted and which had the effect of staying the operation of the letter dated 23.1.2008 i.e., the impugned order so far as it relates to 50% cut in the pension on permanent basis. As a result of grant of interim prayer no recovery has been made.
4. The OA is therefore allowed. The impugned order at Annexure A5 is quashed. The prayer at 8.3 namely to direct the respondents to pay gratuity amount alongwith interest is also granted and we direct that the gratuity amount withheld so far shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per
- 3 -
anum. The said payment shall be made within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordered. No order as to costs.
(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment