The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh & Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & Another

CWPRP-11154-2017Decided on : 22.11.2022. The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh & others| — Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALTIA| HON'BLE MS.JUSTICEK HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present:Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate,Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOIL. None for the respondent. FS FS G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles|226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 17.12.2015.(Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby theTribunal held that the petitioner-department could not withhold thepromotion of the respondent-employee merely due to the pendency ofdepartmental proceedings and same could be subject to the outcome of thesame. The review was also filed which was dismissed on 22.11.2016(Annexure P-5). The present petition was filed on 03.05.2017, apparently only| on the strength of the fact that a departmental order had been passed in themeantime on 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-8) against the employeewithholding the three increments of pay with cumulative effect. We have been informed that the employee has also voluntary|NAVEEN NAGPAL2022.11.30 11:51retired on 02.11.2021. The Tribunal had granted the said relief on theI attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgmentChandigarh CWP-11154-2017 2 eround that an inquiry was pending in which punishment of withholding ofthree increments of pay with cumulative effect had been imposed and thesame had been set aside on 12.11.2010 (Annexure A-6) in OA No.590-PBof 2009 wherein respondents had been given liberty to proceed afresh inthe matter. Challenge had been raised before this Court inCWPNo.24300 of 2011 ‘Union of India and others Vs. Basant Kumar andanother’, which was dismissed on 23.12.2011 (Annexure A-7). In the meantime, the respondents had conducted DPC for'promotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistants for the year 2009-2010,2010-2011, 2011-2012 on 03.05.2012, vide which the employee had beenpromoted on 11.05.2012. For the subsequent promotion as Income TaxInspectors for the recruitment year 2013-2014 junior persons had beenpromoted while ignoring the respondent-employee. Thereafter, anothermeeting of DPC was held for promotion to the post of Inspector for theyear 2013-2014 and the applicant/respondent was not again considered andjuniors were promoted. Resultantly, he had filed OA No.60/01163/2014. — The defence taken was that in view of the liberty granted|earlier they had decided to initiate departmental proceedings vide orderdated 02.11.2012. It was noticed that the said order had never been.communicated to the applicant/respondent, whereby the authorities hadappointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and resultantly it washeld that it was abuse of power of the respondents. In such circumstances,directions were issued that it was only to deprive the applicant of hisvaluable right of consideration of promotion. It was also held that theorder of promotion shall be subject to the outcome of the departmentalproceedings. CWP-11154-2017 3 Apparently, the petitioners have succeeded in their endeavor|to deny the respondent-employee the benefits of promotion, as firstly theychose to file the review to prolong the proceedings for almost a period ofone year. Thereafter, after the review was dismissed they chose not to filethe writ petition for a period of almost six months and only filed the sameon 03.05.2017. An argument as such was raised before the CoordinateBench on which notice motion was issued that a punishment order hadbeen imposed on 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-8). CWP-11154-2017 3 Apparently, the petitioners have succeeded in their endeavor|to deny the respondent-employee the benefits of promotion, as firstly theychose to file the review to prolong the proceedings for almost a period ofone year. Thereafter, after the review was dismissed they chose not to filethe writ petition for a period of almost six months and only filed the sameon 03.05.2017. An argument as such was raised before the CoordinateBench on which notice motion was issued that a punishment order hadbeen imposed on 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-8). A perusal of the file would also go on to show that an|execution application had also been filed. This fact had also been noticedby the learned Tribunal, which would be clear from the order dated20.04.2017, which reads as under:- “|. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that O.A was|allowed vide order dated 17.12.2015 with a positive direction by|this Tribunal to consider his case for promotion pending|departmental proceeding within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of certified copy of the order. He submitted that therespondents instead of complying with the directions of this court|or getting any order from the Hon'ble High Court in their favour,the authorities took almost more than | & 1/2 years to decide his|case by passing the punishment order dated 15.02.2017. He|submitted that the conduct of the respondents in not honouring thedirection of this Court as contained in order dated 17.12.2015, is nothing but colourable exercise on their part to deviate from the|direction of this Court by not considering his case within the timeas granted by this Court, therefore, suo-moto contempt proceeding|may be initiated against the faulty officer. — 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since they|have passed the order of punishment dated 15.02.2017. therefore,they have complied with the order of this Court, as such the|present execution application may be dismissed. CWP-11154-2017 4 3. I have gone through the averment made in the affidavit filed by|Mr. Pragya Singh, working as Deputy Commissioner of Income|Tax (HQ) (Vigilance). Instead of giving reasons for not|considering the applicant's case within the time, they tried to|circumvent the order of this court by giving reasons that they havepassed the punishment order dated 15.02.2017 in compliance of|the order of this Court. This to my mind is contemptuous action ontheir part for which they are liable to settle with the proceeding|under the Contempt of Court.| 4. Before initiating the contempt proceedings against the|respondents, they are given another last chance to apprise this|court as to whether they had considered the case of the applicant|for promotion after the disposal of O.A or not. They are granted|one week’s time to do the needful by filing an affidavit and are|also directed to bring the relevant record on the next date of|hearing. 5. List on 15.05.2017.” Mr. Gosain is not aware as to whether the case of the.employee for promotion had been considered or not. | It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-employee has also lost| interest in the litigation as none has put in appearance, as he has takenvoluntary retirement. We are of the considered opinion that the department as such| proceed in a manner which is unbecoming of a department and rather thewhole litigation has been continued to deprive a person of his right ofconsideration for promotion. However, the respondent-employee is notpresent. Thus, we do not wish to further comment upon the fact as to howhe has been prejudiced by his own officers. Even otherwise, it is apparentthat the order of the Tribunal was an innocuous order and the present writpetition has now been rendered infructuous due to the interveningcircumstances. It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-employee has also lost| interest in the litigation as none has put in appearance, as he has takenvoluntary retirement. We are of the considered opinion that the department as such| proceed in a manner which is unbecoming of a department and rather thewhole litigation has been continued to deprive a person of his right ofconsideration for promotion. However, the respondent-employee is notpresent. Thus, we do not wish to further comment upon the fact as to howhe has been prejudiced by his own officers. Even otherwise, it is apparentthat the order of the Tribunal was an innocuous order and the present writpetition has now been rendered infructuous due to the interveningcircumstances. CWP-11154-2017 5 Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the| order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)JUDGE (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)221192027JUDGENaveen Whether speaking/reasoned :Whether Reportable : Yes/NoYes/No)