UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus UPENDRA SINGH

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 17-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
UPENDRA SINGH 
FEBRUARY 17, 1994 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Govemment servant-Discipli-
~ 
n_ary proceedings High Court's power to inteifere with-Held, Court/Tribunal 
>-
can inteif ere only if on charges framed no misconduct or i"egularity alleged 
c can be said to have been made out or charges are contrary to law. 
Administrative Tribunals ~ct, 1985: s.l'>-Central Administrative 
Tribunal-Power of-Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income 
Tax-Disciplinary proceedings against-Tribunal quashing charge-
D 
sheet-Held a Tribunal cannot inteifere with co"ectness of charges even in a 
-.1111 
proceeding against final order much less at the stage of framing of char-
ges-Jurisdiction of Tribunal is that of High Court under Article 226 of 
Constitution-Function of High Court/Tribunal is one of judicial review. 
Service Law: Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules: ".3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 
,, 
E 3(1)(iii)-Respondent Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income 
Tax-Conducting proceedings against assessee under s. 144A of Income Tax 
Act, 1961-Charges against alleging illegal and improper conduct on his 
part-lnspite of voluminous evidence gathered and incriminating documents 
pointing out to a huge amount of unaccounted income with assesses, respon-
F 
dent acquiescing in their offer to disclose afar smaller amount-Direction by 
respondent to assessing officer to complete assessment under s. 143(1) of 
Income Tax Act during pendency of proceedings under s. 144A-Held, a 
disciplinary inquiry can be held even with respect to conduct of an officer in 
discharge of his judicial/quasi-judicial duties. 
G 
Income Tax Act, 1961: ss. 133A, 143(1), 144A-Assessment-lnspect-
ing Assistant Commissioner-Directions-To assessing officer to complete 
assessment under s. 143( 1)-Held, during the pendency of proceedings under 
,_, 
s. 144A such direction was contrary to law. -
..,_ 
The respondent, was served with a charge-sheet alongwith a state· 
H ment of imputations of misconduct/misbehaviour in support thereof. The 
1070 
{ 
U.0.1. v: UPENDRASINGH 
1071 
-'.. 
charges were to the effect that as an Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of A 
Income Tax, the respondent, while conducting proceedings under s.144-A 
of the Income Tax Act against a group of builders. acted in illegal and 
... 
improper manner and inspite of voluminous evidence gathered he neither 
examined the incriminating documents and evidence nor passed any order 
under s.144-A but acquiesced in the assessees' offer to disclose a far B 
smaller amount as unaccounted income. He also gave directions to the 
..... 
assessing officer to complete the assessments under s.143(1) though the 
-' 
proceedings under s.144-A were pending. The conduct of the respondent 
was stated to have shown an intention to confer undue and improper 
benefits on the assessees and violated Rules 3(l)(i), 3(l)(ii) and 3(l)(iii) 
of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. 
c 
The respondent filed an application before the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal seeking to quash the charges on the ground that no proceed-
ings could be taken against him in respect of bis judicial/quasi-judicial 
function. The Tribunal passed an interim order restraining the appellants D 
from proceeding with disciplinary action. The appellants challenged the 
order in an appeal before this Court. The appeal was allowed and the 
Tribunal was directed to deal with the matter in the light of the decision 
in Union of India & Ors. v. A.N. Saxena, [1992) 3 S.C.C. 124. This Court 
further directed that meanwhile the disciplinary proceedings would con-
tinue. Thereafter, the Tribunal went into correctness of the charges on the E 
basis of the material produced by the respondent and quashed the charge-
sheet holding that the charges did not indicate any corrupt motive or any 
.• 
culpability on the part of the respondent. Hence the appeal by special leave . 
• Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The order of the Tribunal is clearly in excess of its 
jurisdiction. It undertook the inquiry which ought to be held by the 
-. 
disciplinary authority or the inquiry officer. [1078-A, BJ 
Union of India and Ors. v: A.N. Saxena, [1992) 3 S.C.C. 124; relied G 
on. 
1.2. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin 
to that of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the 
principles, norms and the constrai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.