Tribunal spares IRS officer of fresh inquiry in 14-yr-old case

Noting that departmental proceedings cannot be open-ended affair and cannot be initiated against a working officer after an indefinite delay, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has ruled that no fresh penalty provision can be invoked against 1994-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Neeraj Singh. The officer was chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of India (CBI) in 2004 for allegedly showing undue favours to a Mumbai-based finance company.

In its chargesheet, the CBI had also alleged that Singh had failed to report to the “competent authorities, the purchase of a second-hand Maruti Zen Car and some furniture exceeding the value of Rs 15,000.” 

In 2006, a CBI inquiry had cleared Singh of all the charges and had filed a closure report in the matter, exonerating him and the same had been accepted by a Special CBI Court. But in 2012, a departmental inquiry was initiated against Singh just when he was due for a promotion. It was then that he approached the CAT. 

Noting that a CBI court had already acquitted Singh of all charges and that while the allegations against Singh dated to the year 1998-99, he was being asked to clarify his role after “over a decade,” the CAT directed that all proceedings initiated against Singh be quashed.

“It is a settled principle of law that if, after thorough investigation of a case which is common to both the offences and the misconduct, the government servant is exonerated from offence alleged against him, he cannot be proceeded against departmentally. These allegations levelled against the applicant did not amount to offence and the same would also not constitute a misconduct as the factum of delinquency is common to both offences and the present charges,” the Tribunal noted.

“The charges relate to the year 1998-99 and 2000 and all along the department in its file has taken the position that the conduct of the applicant has been satisfactorily explained and there is no need to proceed further. Besides, the department has granted the applicant two promotions during the pendency of the proceeding. All of a sudden, it appears from the file, that there is a complete reversal of the stand without there being any continuity. We are convinced that the department proceeding rests on the issues already reconciled. This kind of conduct cannot be permitted,” it said in its order.