Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur v. N.p. Arora

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ No. 4416/2018 1. Union Of India, through The Secretary, Central Board OfDirect Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Govt. Of India, NorthBlock New Delhi.Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Govt. Of India, NorthBlock New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota ‘C’ Road,Jodhpur.Jodhpur. 3. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur. ----PetitionersVersus 1. N.P. Arora, S/o Sh. O.P. Arora, R/o 1St ‘B’ Road,Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Presently Working As Income TaxOfficer (TDS) in the Office Of Pr. Commissioner Of IncomeTax (TDS), Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur.Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Presently Working As Income TaxOfficer (TDS) in the Office Of Pr. Commissioner Of IncomeTax (TDS), Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Through Its Registrar,Jodhpur Bench At Jodhpur.Jodhpur Bench At Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sunil Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr.J.K.Kaushik HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI 04/01/2019 Order 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.On 27.10.2010 a charge memorandum was issued to the respondent listing the article of charge, the statement ofimputation as also a list of documents on which the charge wasproposed to be proved. On 10[th] December, 2010 a penalty orderwas issued reducing pay of the respondent by one stage in thetime scale of pay for a period of three years with direction that therespondent will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the period of reduction thesame will not have the effect of postponing his future incrementsof pay. 3.The respondent challenged the penalty inflicted and apartfrom the merits raised the plea that the penalty was a majorpenalty and could not have been inflicted without an enquiry beingheld. 4.Vide order dated 19.9.2013 the Central AdministrativeTribunal opined that the penalty imposed was a major penalty andon said ground alone set aside the penalty observing that theDepartment would be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 5.The said order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Tribunal wasset aside by a Division bench of this Court on 3.12.2014 observingthat the penalty was a minor penalty. 6.In the concluding part the Division Bench after declaring theorder passed by the Tribunal to be illegal made it clear that theacceptance of the writ petition filed by the Union of India would inno manner adversely affect the right of the original applicant if hewas having any grievance concerning the penalty order. 7.The respondent filed a review application before the Tribunaldrawing attention to the order passed by this Court and prayed tothe Tribunal that other grounds urged in the original application bedecided. 8.Vide impugned order dated 13.4.2017 the Tribunal recalledits earlier order and held that the original application requires tobe decided on the other points urged by the respondent. 9.Challenging the order dated 13.4.2017 the case of the writpetitioner is that once the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Tribunal was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court theprinciple of merger applies. 10.Suffice it to state that the technicalities of law areconfronting the respondent because after the Division Benchdecided the earlier writ petition filed by the Union of Indiarespondent filed application for review before the Tribunal.Needless to state what the respondent intended to seek from theTribunal was that the earlier order which was passed by theTribunal on a technical ground being set aside by the DivisionBench of this Court requires the Tribunal to decide the other pointswhich were urged by the original applicant. 9.Challenging the order dated 13.4.2017 the case of the writpetitioner is that once the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by the Tribunal was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court theprinciple of merger applies. 10.Suffice it to state that the technicalities of law areconfronting the respondent because after the Division Benchdecided the earlier writ petition filed by the Union of Indiarespondent filed application for review before the Tribunal.Needless to state what the respondent intended to seek from theTribunal was that the earlier order which was passed by theTribunal on a technical ground being set aside by the DivisionBench of this Court requires the Tribunal to decide the other pointswhich were urged by the original applicant. 11.Needless to state, as noted above, in its order dated3.12.2014 the Division Bench has observed that the originalapplicant could urge remainder grievances concerning the penaltyorder. 12.In fact, the Division Bench ought to have observed that inview of the fact that other points were urged before the Tribunalwhich were not decided, the Tribunal should decide the same.Rather than saying that, the Division Bench left it for the originalapplicant to urge grievances concerning the penalty order beforethe Central Administrative Tribunal. 13.In view of the facts noted above we find no infirmity in theorder of the Tribunal taking a view that it would decide the otherpoints urged by the respondent in the original application. 14.The writ petition is dismissed. (PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 19-Parmar/- (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ