Court sets aside Charge Memo against Income Tax Officer, emphasizing need for Finance Minister's approval.

The Court set aside the Charge Memo issued by the Ministry of Finance against a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, ruling that proper sanction from the Finance Minister was required due to the officer's rank. As the Finance Minister had not granted approval, the Charge Memo was deemed non est and against the rules. The Court emphasized that only the Finance Minister had jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for officers with the President of India as their Appointing and Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, the petition challenging the Charge Memo was allowed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order upholding Charge Memo issuance by Ministry of Finance without proper sanction.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order upholding the issuance of a Charge Memo against him by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The petitioner argued that a fundamental error was made in the issuance of the Charge Memo as it referred to his previous designation as Deputy Commissioner, whereas at the time of issuance, he was a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The rule governing the issuance of Charge Memos to officers of the rank of Commissioner was cited, stating that approval for issuing Charge Memos lies with the Finance Minister. The respondent clarified through an RTI reply that no sanction was granted by the Union Finance Minister for the Charge Memo against the petitioner. The respondent admitted that the Chairman of CBDT approved penalty proceedings against the petitioner, which was deemed as non est since proper sanction was not obtained from the Finance Minister.

The respondent presented an Office Order by the Ministry of Finance regarding the work allocated to the Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance. The order specified that matters concerning Group-A officers below the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax, including establishment and vigilance, would be disposed of at the level of the Minister of State. However, matters where the President of India is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority should be submitted to the Finance Minister through the Minister of State. This clarified that for officers like the petitioner, whose Appointing and Disciplinary Authority is the President of India, only the Finance Minister would have jurisdiction over issuing Charge Memos or related proceedings.

The Court noted that the petitioner, as a Group-A officer in the rank of Joint Commissioner, had the President of India as the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, only the Finance Minister had the authority to issue any Charge Memo or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Court referenced a Supreme Court decision and the Government of India's clarification that the sole authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officers like the petitioner lies with the Finance Minister. Consequently, the Court set aside the Charge Memo as being without proper sanction, against the rules, and non est. The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---