Wp/7369/2006 Of A.s.sastry v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad-1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 7369 of 2006 17.04.2006 Between:A.S.Sastry. And …Petitioner The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-1 & others. ….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 7369 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki) This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the charges framed vide Articles of Charge dated28.6.2005 and appointment of Inquiry Officer by order dated27.7.2005 as arbitrary and illegal. For the same purpose, an O.A. being O.A.No.788 of 2005 is pending before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal and the petitioner contends that no orderswere passed in his application for interim relief. It appears that the Tribunal took up the matter on variousoccasions and wanted to consider the application for interim reliefonly after counter was filed by the respondents. On 26[th] of October2005, the Tribunal passed the order. The relevant portion is given inthe writ petition as under, “Counsel for the applicant however, pressed for interimrelief on the ground that he is retiring on 30-11-2005 andin view of his clean record so far in service, he may not bedriven to face the charge memo before retirement. Thisplea is not at all tenable in law, as the matter has to beviewed in accordance with the rules and procedures inconducting the enquiry. Though the counsel citedjudgment of the Supreme Court, viz., AIR 1998 SC 1833and 2005 (6) SCC 636, wherein charge memos werequashed on account of inordinate delay, this case, in ouropinion, stands on a different footing as the delay, if at all,has been for a period of four years only, and for which therespondents side has to be heard in order to examinewhether the delay is justified or not. In this view, we consider that an opportunity should begiven to the respondents to furnish their reply. Two weekstime is granted for this purpose. The case be listed on 09-11-2005.” Thereafter, an application came to be filed for expedite hearing,which was disposed of on 20[th] of March 2006 with the followingobservations, “Heard learned counsel for the applicant. There are largenumber of matters pending prior to this matter and at thisstage we are not inclined to grant early hearing in the matter. The applicant may renew his request for expeditehearing after 3 months.” Obviously the petitioner had retired on 30[th] of November 2005and there was no urgency to hear the matter on priority, as accordingto the Tribunal, there were hundreds of cases in the queue. In ourview, even if the petition for interim relief had been heard, it couldhave not been granted as the charges are of serious nature and itcan only be ascertained during an inquiry whether these charges areproved or not proved, or whether there has been delay in ordering aninquiry. These matters can be considered during the inquiry. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted thatpetitioner is entitled to pension after retirement, and during thependency of inquiry. The respondents are directed to passappropriate orders with regard to the pension of the petitioner withintwo weeks from today. 17[th] April 2006 ________________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) ajr __________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH,J)