Pankaj Gupta vs M/o Finance on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-

The present original application has been directed against the charge sheet dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure A-1).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that while the applicant was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Indore an FIR was lodged by the CBI as a consequence of trap. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the CBI Court. Simultaneously, a charge sheet dated 09.09.2009 was also served by the respondents for the same set of allegations. The applicant denied the allegation. Having not satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for departmental inquiry by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the applicant preferred representation dated 30.04.2012 for staying the disciplinary proceedings till the outcome of the criminal case. As the respondent did not consider the above representation , he filed O.A. No.470/2012 and the Tribunal stayed the disciplinary proceedings till December, 2013 (Annexure-A/3).

3. The applicant has also preferred representation dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure A-5) alleging that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied his mind while approving the charge sheet and

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

sought approval of the Finance Minister in a mechanical manner. The said representation of applicant was rejected vide order dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure-A/6). However, he was advised to approach the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation dated 11.02.2015 before the Enquiry Officer which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure A/8).

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that charge sheet issued to the applicant is illegal and proceedings have been conducted in an arbitrary and biased manner. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the approval given by the Finance Minister is not in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd and others Vs. Ananta Shah, (2011) 5 SCC 142. The office of DGIT (Vig.) without drawing the charge sheet and taking approval of the same from the Finance Minister, who is the disciplinary authority in his case, sought first Stage Advise from Central Vigilance Commission and in turn, the Central Vigilance Commission tendered a communication dated 02.12.2008 which the respondent no. 3 has treated as first stage advice. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondents have not followed the circular issued by the CVC according to which the

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

draft charge-sheet must be accompanied with the comments of the Disciplinary Authority for seeking first stage advice of CVC. In the present case, the applicant has been prejudiced since the communication of the CVC to initiate major penalty proceedings has been received and the DGIT (vigilance) has treated the same as first stage advice and prepared the Charge Memo for getting the approval of the Finance Minister, and while doing so the established procedure was not properly followed. Hence the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that at the time of obtaining the permission for initiation of departmental proceeding, the approval of charge memo and first stage of advice, the relevant documents and statement were not supplied to the applicant along with the charge-sheet dated 09.09.2009. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the action of the respondents in issuing charge-sheet is totally arbitrary, unjust and has been issued without following the rules and circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission.

6. Upon notice, the respondents have filed reply denying the claim of the applicant primarily on the ground that there is no case

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

of the applicant at this stage, because the disciplinary proceedings under challenge have not been finalized, nor any penalty has been imposed on him.

7. On merits, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inquiry Officer has passed a speaking order dated 06.04 2015. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that as per office order dated 19.07.2005 issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, for reference to CVC for First Stage Advice in respect of officers up to the level of Commissioner, the Chairman CBDT is empowered to do so. Therefore, advice of the CVC was taken as per the law and the charge sheet has been issued after observing all the legal formalities. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that during the pendency of this OA, the applicant has been convicted in a criminal case by the Special Court of CBI vide order dated 16.12.2022. A show cause notice under rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 has been issued on 03.02.2023 and in response thereto, the applicant has filed his reply/ representation on 09.03.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure MA-1) the penalty of dismissal from

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

service has been imposed by the Hon’ble President of India. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present OA does not survive and has prayed to dismiss the same.

8. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well.

9. It is not disputed that the applicant was trapped by the CBI and a criminal case was lodged against him in Special Court of CBI. Based on same set of facts and the documents as well as witnesses, the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 09.09.2009 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 which has been challenged in the present OA mainly on the ground that the procedure for obtaining the advice of the CVC after approval of the disciplinary authority has not been followed. The DGIT (Vigilance) without approval of the Finance Minister, who is the disciplinary authority in the subject case, sought first stage advice from the CVC. The CVC tendered the advice dated 02.12.2008 even when the approval of the Finance Minister had not been taken. When the matter was taken up on 30.11.2015 by this Tribunal, the respondents were restrained from proceeding in the disciplinary enquiry in respect of the charge

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

sheet dated 09.09.2009. During the pendency of the present original application, the criminal case No. 1/2009 filed against the applicant was decided by the Special Court CBI vide order dated 16.12.2022 in which the applicant was convicted. Thereafter, the respondents department issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2023. Para 2 of the show cause notice is reproduced below: - “2. AND WHEREAS, the President proposes to award the penalty of removal/dismissal from Government Service on the said Shri Pankaj Gupta, ACIT (04039) under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965, taking into account the gravity of the criminal charges.”

10. The applicant filed his reply/ representation to the aforesaid show cause notice on 09.03.2023 (Annexure IA-2) requesting for keeping the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that his appeal challenging the order passed by the Trial Court is pending before Hon’ble High Court of M.P and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court has been suspended. Thereafter, the applicant was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service under order dated 21.02.2024.

11. Now, the main issue before us as to whether the issue involved in the present OA is liable to be adjudicated after the penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965?

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

12. The charge sheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. However, the further proceeding pursuant to the said charge sheet were stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2015. During the pendency of this original application, the applicant got convicted by the Special Court of CBI in the criminal case lodged against him by the CBI. Thereafter, the respondents department initiated action against the applicant under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 which is being reproduced below: - “19. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES: Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or

(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i): Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary *[and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

Commission,] before any orders are made in any case under this rule.”

13. From the above, it is clear that the applicant has been awarded the punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. It is noted that before inflicting the penalty, the applicant was served with a show cause notice and in response thereto he gave his representation. Thus, in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, there is no scope for separate proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, the Original Application challenging the charge sheet does not survive and has become infructuous, after imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. ‘dismissal from service’. A charge sheet is merely a show-cause notice or an intermediate step in the disciplinary proceedings. Once a final order of penalty is passed, the intermediate stage merges into the final order. Courts and Tribunals generally do not adjudicate a challenge to a charge sheet after a final penalty order has been passed and implemented. The original charge sheet was issued for initiation of a regular departmental inquiry. However, penalty of dismissal was imposed based on his criminal conviction. There is a separate legal

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

mechanism which allows authorities to bypass the regular inquiry procedure and dismiss an employee summarily based solely on a judicial conviction as per Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules).

14. In view of the forgoing discussions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned charge sheet dated 09.09.2009. Accordingly, the OA No. 971/2015 is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Tribunal is also vacated.

15. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.

16. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya)

(Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member

Judicial Member Anand…

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY