A Raja Sekhar Gowd vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT on 28 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA) NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004 Order Sheet Item no.: 16 O.A./424/2026 (ANDHRA PRADESH) [ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 6 Order Dated: 28/10/2026 A RAJA SEKHAR GOWD Vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

For Applicant(s) Advocate : ANS VENKATESH

For Respondent(s) Advocate : B GAYATRI VARMA Order of The Tribunal The Applicant challenges the remand order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, directing a further inquiry despite the Inquiry Officer’s finding that not all the charges against the Applicant were proved.

2. The Applicant has also sought interim relief. By orders dated 19.06.2026 and 07.10.2026, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed this Tribunal to reconsider the prayer for interim relief on merits, after hearing both sides, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The said directions were brought to the notice of the Tribunal through an email dated 15.10.2026 and a memo dated 26.10.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the brief facts of the case are as under : On 14.03.2019 ACB-CIU, Vijayawada trapped the Applicant on a complaint by the auditor of an assessee alleging a bribe of Rs 25,000. ACB had no jurisdiction over a Central Government employee, and the case was transferred to CBI (RC0362020A0007 dated 02.06.2020). CBI filed its charge sheet on 01.02.2021, now CC No. 24 of 2022 before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Kurnool.

In Crl.P. No. 10145 of 2022 the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., by order dated 01.08.2023, stayed all further proceedings in CC No. 24 of 2022 on the ground that CBI lacked jurisdiction to register the case after the State's withdrawal of general consent. The stay continues. The department issued a charge memo on 13.07.2022 (four charges), based on the statements recorded by CBI and without any independent inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after a full inquiry, reported on 05.09.2024 (PB p.140) that all the charges are not proved.

4. During the course of the arguments, it has been highlighted that the inquiry process has been differed for non-availability of witnesses and presses for urgent interim relief. The sum and substance of the argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that Rule 15(1) allows remit for further inquiry only for reasons recorded, to cure a procedural defect. The illustrative cases in the Vigilance Manual and the Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities (Ch. 25) are all procedural: a missed Rule 14(18) question, a wrongly refused witness or document, a refused defense assistant, or ex-prate irregularity. None is alleged here.

5. The reasons in the remittance order are the non-examination of two witnesses, the absence of the 65-B certificate and CDs, and a view that the IO did not apply preponderance of probability. The first three are lapses of the Presenting Officer, who never objected to the exclusion of the witnesses, even in his brief. The fourth is mere disagreement. The order itself calls the Applicant's hand-loan plea an "afterthought" and a "colourable device". This is re-appreciation of evidence under the name of remit; the proper course for a disagreeing authority is Rule 15(2).

6. The witnesses and documents now sought are not in Annexure III of the charge memo. A disciplinary authority cannot rely on or even refer to a document not mentioned in the charge sheet: Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10.

7. He further submits that once Inquiry Officer has given a finding, that the record before the IO favors the Applicant. The complainant turned hostile and admitted the Applicant had asked him for a hand loan. The department's own witnesses told the 10 that CBI inserted words such as "deliberately kept pending" into their statements, and those statements were unsigned. Where two views are possible, the one favoring the charged official must stand (in dubio pro reo).

8. The Disciplinary Authority's note on tentative dis-agreement dated 17-01-2025 speaks of initiating major penalty proceedings before the Applicant was heard, and the remittance order goes beyond that note. This shows a closed mind and violates Rule 15(2) and Articles 14 and 21.

9. It has been contended that the criminal case involves identical facts and that a stay of the criminal proceedings is already in operation, as highlighted above. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant and that interim relief ought to be granted.

10. It is further contended that the Disciplinary Authority formed its opinion on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the following judgments:

i. State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417

ii. Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 679

iii. Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10 Basing on the above case laws, the applicant seeks the interim relief as under : “Pending disposal of the present Original Application, this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to stay all the further departmental proceedings against the applicant pursuant to the impugned remitting order of the 3rd Respondent passed vide F.No.ARSG/Vig/PCIT/TPT/2025-2026 dated 20-11- 2025 under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in the interest of justice and to avoid any miscarriage of justice.”

11. In response to the interim prayer, the respondents have filed a memo highlighting that : “3. It is submitted that the present Original Application challenges an order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, remitting the matter to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry. The impugned order does not impose any penalty or record a final finding of guilt against the Applicant. It merely directs completion of the inquiry after identifying material deficiencies in the earlier proceedings.

4. Further, the Respondents respectfully submit that the impugned order is a reasoned order passed after considering the Inquiry Officer's report dated 05.09.2024, the tentative disagreement communicated on 17.01.2025, and the Applicant's representation dated 06.03.2025. The Applicant has not established any Jurisdictional error, illegality or violation of natural justice warranting interference by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

5. The remittal order is within the statutory power of the Disciplinary Authority Rule 15(1) expressly empowers the Disciplinary Authority, for reasons recorded in writing, to remit a case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report. The impugned order records specific reasons for exercising this power. The Inquiry Officer's finding that the charge was "not proved is not, by itself, conclusive or binding upon the Disciplinary Authority. The authority was entitled to examine whether the inquiry was complete and whether relevant evidence had been properly considered. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a direction to Inquiry Officer to conduct further inquiry in exercise of statutory power to secure a complete impartial inquiry, not an order imposing punishment on the applicant.

6. Two material prosecution witnesses were not examined Annexure-IV to the Charge Memorandum lists eleven (11) prosecution witnesses. However, the Inquiry Officer's report and the Presenting Officer's brief indicate that summons were issued to only nine (9) witnesses. The two witnesses omitted were: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, DSP, CIU, ACB, Vijayawada. Shri A.K. Dabas, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam. These witnesses were considered material to the audio/video recordings relating to the telephone call dated 21.02.2019 and the meeting dated 12.03.2019. Neither their examination-in-chief nor their cross-examination took place. The inquiry findings were reached without examination of material witnesses. The Disciplinary Authority was justified in directing further inquiry so that the relevant evidence could be properly tested, including through cross-examination by the Applicant.

7. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the electronic evidence and related documentary material require proper examination. Thus, the impugned order identifies deficiencies concerning the audio/video recordings and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stated to have been furnished by the complainant. It also notes inadequate consideration of the complainant's statement dated 30.03.2019 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and of evidence concerning the custody and movement of the refund file. The Disciplinary Authority has not declared any of this material as conclusive evidence to establish the charge against the applicant. It directed further inquiry so that the relevant evidence could be brought on record and examined in accordance with the applicable rules, providing reasonable and fair opportunity to the Applicant to examine and contest during the course of the proceedings. xx xx xx

9. The Respondents' case is not that the Disciplinary Authority has finally substituted its own finding of guilt for the Inquiry Officer's finding of "not proved." The issue is that material witnesses were not examined and relevant evidence was not adequately considered. The question at this stage is whether the Disciplinary Authority had recorded reasons for directing further inquiry to address identified deficiencies-not whether the charge already stands proved. The Applicant's defence and the evidentiary value of the material remain to be assessed in the further inquiry.

10. Further, the department is on the stand that the criminal proceedings do not automatically invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, the Applicant reliance on the pending criminal case, CC No. 24 of 2022, and the interim order in Crl.P. No. 10145 of 2022 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not automatically puts does not specifically restrain the Respondents from conducting the departmental inquiry. The criminal proceedings by CBI authorities and departmental inquiry are in different footing and for distinct purposes and standards of proof. Unless the Applicant establishes that the High Court's order expressly or necessarily bars the departmental proceedings, the mere pendency of stay of the criminal case does not establish that the impugned remittal order is unlawful. xx xx xx xx xx xx

13. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 is a reasoned order passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The order identifies specific deficiencies in the earlier inquiry, particularly the non-examination of two material witnesses and the inadequate examination of relevant evidence. The direction for further inquiry is intended to ensure a fair and complete adjudication of the existing charge and does not amount to a finding of guilt or imposition of penalty upon the Applicant.

14. Further, it is submitted that the Applicant will have an opportunity to participate in the further inquiry, cross-examine the witnesses and establish his defence in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles of natural justice. No sufficient ground has been established for quashing the impugned order or restraining the Respondents from proceeding further in accordance with law. It is, therefore, prayed that the Original Application, along with the prayer for interim relief, may kindly be dismissed.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and upon perusal of the case records and relevant material, we observe that the larger issue for consideration is whether the competent Disciplinary Authority was justified in remitting the matter for further inquiry on the basis of a disagreement note and directing the examination of witnesses, particularly the two witnesses referred to hereinabove.

13. It is to be noted that, in Crl.P. No. 10145 of 2022, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 01.08.2023, stayed all further proceedings in C.C. No. 24 of 2022 on the ground that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to register the case following the State Government’s withdrawal of general consent. The said order and the circumstances leading to it are relevant to the Applicant’s contention that continuation of the departmental inquiry, particularly the examination of the aforesaid witnesses, may cause prejudice to the Applicant.

14. Without expressing any final opinion on the validity of the remand order or its conformity with the applicable rules, we are of the prima facie view that the Applicant has made out a case for interim relief. The balance of convenience also appears to lie in favour of the Applicant. No irreparable loss or injury is likely to be caused by staying the examination of the aforesaid witnesses until a detailed reply is filed and the challenge to the remand order is considered on its merits. The validity of the impugned order requires examination not only with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case but also in the light of the applicable statutory provisions and rules.

15. In view of the foregoing, the Inquiry Officer is restrained from proceeding further with the inquiry proceedings until the next date of hearing. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for both parties to take such steps as may be advised, in accordance with law.

16. Let the learned counsel for the Respondents shall file their reply within four weeks, and the learned counsel for the Applicant may file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

17. List the matter on 20.01.2027. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member (A) MR MANISH GARG Member (J) Sree Devi ( pps )