RAHUL PADHA vs UNION OF INDIA on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) Allow the instant application of the applicant along with costs; b) Set aside/quash the Memorandum issued to the applicant by the respondent on 02.12.2024; c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: - a) The applicant, a senior officer of the Indian Revenue Service, is presently serving as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, having an unblemished service record spanning several decades. He has earned successive promotions in 2019 and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

2023 on the basis of UPSC recommendations and vigilance clearance, and is due for consideration to the next higher post of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax w.e.f. 01.01.2026. b) The controversy arises out of a search and seizure operation conducted in May 2017 against the DRRK Group and allied entities in the districts of Amritsar and Tarn Taran. The search covered 23 residential and commercial premises, involved more than 100 departmental officials, and was conducted under the direct command, supervision, and control of the then Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Jalandhar, who headed the control room established at Amritsar. c) The applicant, at the relevant time posted as Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar, was not the authorising or supervising authority. His role was confined to:  providing logistical and infrastructural support,

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

 assisting search teams strictly on instructions of the Additional DIT,  coordinating communication and verification work as directed. d) All authorised officers, including those deployed at the residential premises of Smt. Rekha Rani at House No. 283-E, Basant Avenue, were senior to the applicant and functioned independently under the supervision of the Additional DIT from the control room. e) A WhatsApp group titled “Operation Swordfish” was created by the Additional DIT to monitor real-time developments. The chats clearly establish that:  all operational instructions emanated from the Additional DIT,  field officers reported directly to him,  the applicant neither issued instructions nor exercised supervisory authority. f) On 25.05.2017, after the conclusion of search proceedings at around 7:30 PM, information was received by the Principal DIT, Ludhiana, that one lady, Smt. Rekha Rani, had allegedly

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

left the searched premises and operated a bank locker. This information was conveyed first to the Additional DIT, who thereafter informed the applicant late in the night and directed him to undertake verification. g) Pursuant to these directions:  verification at the bank was conducted on 26.05.2017,  statements of the bank officials and the assessee were recorded,  CCTV footage was obtained,  a prosecution show-cause notice was issued on the same day,  the matter was reported to superior authorities,  the locker was ultimately searched under a warrant issued by the Additional DIT on 30.05.2017. h) Subsequently, during post-search proceedings, the assessee made a voluntary disclosure of additional undisclosed income of ₹8.5 crores, directly attributable to the verification efforts undertaken.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

i) Despite all actions being taken under the supervision of competent authorities, a Memorandum dated 02.12.2024 was issued to the applicant alleging violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Crucially:  the Additional DIT, who headed the entire operation, was merely issued a non-recordable administrative warning,  whereas the applicant, who acted only on instructions, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. j) The applicant contends that the Memorandum is arbitrary, discriminatory, legally untenable, and issued after an inordinate delay of more than seven years, without supplying complete relied-upon documents.

3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The respondents justify issuance of the Memorandum by asserting that the applicant, as the conducting ADIT, failed to act diligently when information regarding clandestine operation of a bank locker surfaced during the search proceedings.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

b) It is alleged that:  the applicant failed to issue stop-operation directions to the bank,  did not immediately obtain a warrant under Section 132(1),  failed to ensure recording of statements of key persons,  did not effectively coordinate with the search team at the relevant premises,  and failed to report the incident promptly through preliminary search reports. c) The respondents contend that these omissions amount to lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming conduct under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. They further maintain that disciplinary proceedings are justified notwithstanding the role of senior officers.

4. The applicant has filed the rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents wherein he has averred as follows:- a) The applicant emphatically denies the allegations and submits that the entire foundation of the Memorandum rests on a

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

misconception of law, procedure, and hierarchy governing search operations. b) It is reiterated that:  authority to issue warrants, stop operations, or impose prohibitory orders vests exclusively in the Principal DIT / Additional DIT, not in an ADIT;  the information regarding the locker surfaced after the search had concluded, making the allegation of failure during “ongoing search” factually incorrect;  all superior authorities were already in possession of the information and actively supervising verification and prosecution;  PSRs, appraisal reports, and prosecution proposals explicitly record the locker incident, disproving suppression or non-reporting. c) Regarding recording of statements, the applicant clarifies that:

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

 statements during search are recorded by authorised officers of the respective premises,  the applicant was neither the authorised officer nor present at the said premises,  the panchnama conclusively establishes who recorded statements. d) As regards coordination, it is submitted that:  no information regarding the lady leaving the premises was ever communicated to the control room or WhatsApp group,  without knowledge, no preventive action could have been taken,  no such lapse is recorded in the panchnama or contemporaneous records. e) The applicant further highlights hostile discrimination, as:

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

 the superior officer who commanded the entire operation was only cautioned,  while the applicant has been singled out for formal disciplinary action. f) Lastly, the applicant submits that:  the Memorandum is vitiated by delay, denial of relied- upon documents, non-application of mind, and violation of principles of natural justice;  continuation of proceedings gravely prejudices his imminent promotion. g) Accordingly, the applicant seeks quashing of the Memorandum dated 02.12.2024 with all consequential benefits.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.

6. The applicant, presently working as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and stated to be due for consideration for further promotion as

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

Additional Commissioner (Income Tax) w.e.f. 01.01.2026, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal essentially questioning the continuance of disciplinary proceedings initiated by Memorandum dated 02.12.2024 and seeking its quashment.

7. The factual backdrop, as projected, is that the controversy traces to a search operation conducted in May, 2017 across multiple premises in Amritsar and Tarn Taran, with a control-room mechanism and deployment of several authorized officers, wherein the applicant claims his role was confined to logistical/technical support and acting under the overall supervision and command of the senior officer heading the operation.

8. The applicant asserts that an incident pertaining to a lady allegedly leaving a searched premise and operating a bank locker came to light after conclusion of the search on 25.05.2017, that immediate steps were thereafter undertaken in the manner directed by the senior officer, and that initiation/continuation of disciplinary action at this stage is unwarranted, besides pleading that relevant relied-upon documents were not fully supplied.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

9. Having considered the pleadings and the nature of relief sought, the first and governing principle which must be kept in view is that ordinarily the Tribunal does not interfere at the stage of issuance of a charge memorandum/charge-sheet, as the same is not a punishment; it merely sets the disciplinary law in motion, and disputed questions of fact touching the merits of the allegations are to be examined in the departmental enquiry. Interference at the threshold is therefore an exception and not the rule, confined to cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of statutory bar, or where continuation itself is demonstrably an abuse of process. In the present case, we are not persuaded to undertake a roving enquiry into the correctness of the imputations or to return findings on merits, for that would amount to pre-judging the enquiry.

10. At the same time, it is equally well settled that disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted to remain pending endlessly. Protracted enquiries, by their very nature, operate prejudicially upon an employee and may also impair administrative efficiency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi emphasized that departmental proceedings must be

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

concluded within a reasonable time and that courts/tribunals are competent to issue appropriate directions to ensure timely completion, so that the process does not become punitive by delay itself.

11. Keeping in view the above binding principle, and also noticing that the incident pertains to the year 2017 while the disciplinary action has culminated into the Memorandum dated 02.12.2024, we consider it just, fair and in the interest of justice to balance the competing considerations: (i) non-interference on merits at the threshold; and (ii) protection against an open-ended disciplinary shadow.

12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges, we dispose of the O.A. with the following directions: a) The respondents shall ensure that the departmental enquiry pursuant to Memorandum dated 02.12.2024 is taken to its logical conclusion, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) months from the date a copy of this order is received by the competent authority. b) If the enquiry is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six (06) months, and the delay is not attributable to the applicant (including on account of any interim protection/stay

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

obtained by him), then the Memorandum dated 02.12.2024 shall be treated as having lost its force and shall be deemed to be quashed, with all consequential benefits limited to restoration of position as if no such Memorandum survives, subject of course to law. However, in case of justifiable reasons for delay in finalization of the case, the period may be extended by a special leave of this Tribunal. c) In the event the applicant becomes due for promotion within the said six (06) months period, his case shall be considered along with other similarly situated eligible officers. However, since a departmental enquiry would be pending during that window, the respondents shall adopt the sealed cover procedure for the applicant’s assessment, and the outcome shall abide by and be subject to the final result of the enquiry, in accordance with the applicable instructions/rules governing promotions during pendency of disciplinary proceedings. d) It is clarified that these directions are issued only to ensure fairness, timeliness and to prevent the disciplinary process from

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 1088/2025

becoming oppressive by delay. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the charges or the defence of the applicant, which shall be adjudicated by the competent authority/enquiry officer independently on the basis of evidence and material on record.

13. With the above directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV