- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R P MEENA v. REVENUE
Item No.60 Court-I 1 OA 2589/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2589/2022 This the 13thday of May, 2026 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A) R.P. Meena, IRS (Retd.),
Aged about 63 years
S/o Shri Shravan Lal Meena
R/o Flat No.480, DDA SFS Flat, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. (Retired as Commissioner of Income Tax, Group A)
….Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S K Srivastava with Ms. Shubhi Srivastava)
Versus
1. Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Through Director (Admin)
Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
4. Central Vigilance Commission Through its Secretary
CGO Complex, A Wing, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023.
5. Central Bureau of Investigation, Through its Director
Plot No.5 B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
1
New Delhi-110003.
6. The DGIT(Vig) & CVO, CBDT, 2ndFloor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
7. Sri Ravjit Arneja, IRS, Pr. CIT & Ld. Inquiry Officer, C/o Chairman, CBDT,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
8. Ms. Anuja Sarangi, IRS, C/o Chairman, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi-110001. …Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R K Jain)
2
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:
The present Original Application is filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
"(i) Quash & set aside impugned Chargesheet dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure A-1) & the impugned advice of CVC dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure A-2);
(ii) May also be pleased to pass any further order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed just & proper by this Hon'ble Court to meet the ends of justice."
2. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant while working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was booked under Section 7, 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120 (b) of the IPC on 08.07.2011. The CBI thereafter filed a chargesheet against the applicant on 07.11.2012 before the CBI Special Court. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel, further submitted that both the criminal case as well as departmental proceeding against the applicant are based on identical facts. He also submitted that witnesses cited a document relied upon are also identical.
3. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel, also submitted that the applicant is acquitted by the CBI Special Court vide its judgment/ order dated 10.05.2023. He lastly submitted that since the allegations in both the proceedings are identical, the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant, vide impugned order, in the present OA, deserve to be
3
quashed and set aside. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel, also challenged the maintainability of the departmental proceedings against the applicant.
4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, took preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the OA. He submitted that the applicant already approached the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.502/2018. Before Mumbai Bench also, he challenged the subject enquiry proceedings. The aforementioned OA was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2022 and the applicant thereafter approached this Tribunal by way of the present OA. Mr. Jain, learned counsel, submitted that the present OA is barred by the principle of res-judicata.
5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, we have gone through the prayers sought by the applicant in O.A. No.502/2018 filed before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal and the present O.A. The prayers in the O.A. filed before Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal, i.e. O.A. No.502/2018, are reproduced hereunder:
" (a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to call for the records and proceedings leading to the issue of the impugned Memorandum of charges dated 23rd Oct, 2012 and after going through the legality or otherwise thereof, this Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to quash an set aside the same.
(b) That in the alternative to prayer clause (a), this Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to stay the disciplinary departmental proceedings initiated vide impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 23rd Oct, 2012 and further direct the respondents not to proceed with the impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 23rd Oct, 2012 pending the hearing and final disposal of Special Case No.80 of 2012 on the file of Special Judge Mumbai.
(c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to call for the records and proceedings leading to the issued communication dated 09.07.2018 as in Annexure A-4 and after going through the legality or otherwise thereof, this Hon'ble Tribunla will be pleased to quash and set aside the same.
4
(d) That costs of this Application be awarded in favour of the applicant; and
(e) That such other and further reliefs as are expedient be granted in favour of the applicant."
6. Prayer clause (a) in the OA filed by the applicant before Mumbai Bench i.e. O.A. No.502/2018 and prayer clause (i) in the present O.A filed by the applicant before the Principal Bench are one and the same. It is pertinent to note that when the applicant approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal by way of the present O.A, a criminal case against the applicant was pending before the CBI Special Court, Mumbai and his acquittal order was passed only during the pendency of this OA.
7. In above circumstances, we agree with the submission made by Mr. R K Jain, learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant could not have approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal when similar relief was not granted to him by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal.
8. Face with the above difficulty, Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, upon taking instruction from his client who is present in the court, seeks permission to withdraw the present OA with liberty to make fresh representation to the respondents, bringing subsequent developments to the notice of the respondents. He submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider and dispose of the said representation of the applicant expeditiously. This course of action is not objected by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
5
9. In above circumstances, the present OA stands disposed of as withdrawn with further directions as follows:
i) The applicant is at liberty to file fresh detailed representation before the respondent/ appointing authority bringing to their notice the subsequent developments regarding acquittal from the CBI Court within a period of two weeks from today.
ii) In the event, such representation is filed by the applicant, the competent authority among the respondents shall dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the points and contentions of the respective parties are expressly kept open. The representation of the applicant shall be disposed of by the respondents/ competent authority, independently and in accordance with law.
11. Interim relief granted, if any, shall stand vacated.
12. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman
/kr/
6
Alert