THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

- 1 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REVIEW PETITION NO. 88 OF 2022 c/w REVIEW PETITION NO. 89 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

T C GUPTA, S/O SHRI GYAN CHAND GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O S-77, GOLDEN ENCLAVE, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560017. …PETITIONER [COMMON IN BOTH THE PETITIONS]

(BY SRI. T C GUPTA, PARTY IN PERSON)

AND

1 . UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.

2 . PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, C.R.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS [COMMON IN BOTH THE PETITIONS]

(BY SRI. B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

THE PETITIONER (PARTY-IN-PERSON) HAS FILED RP NO. 88 OF 2022 UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS COURT THAT THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2020 IN W.P.NO. 35350/2019 MAY KINDLY BE REVIEWED AND RECALLED AND ERRORS APPARENT MAY KINDLY BE CORRECTED AND THE PETITION, MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED, SO AS TO SUB-SERVE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE.

THE PETITIONER (PARTY-IN-PERSON) HAS FILED RP NO. 89 OF 2022 UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS COURT THAT THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2020 IN W.P.NO. 20420/2019 MAY KINDLY BE REVIEWED AND RECALLED AND ERRORS APPARENT MAY KINDLY BE CORRECTED AND THE PETITION, MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED, SO AS TO SUB-SERVE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE.

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

These two RPs No.88/2022 and 89/2022 have been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated

- 3 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

04.02.2020 passed by this Court in WPs No.35350/2019 and 20420/2019.

- 4 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

conducted at Jaipur have not been reimbursed. Hence, he is entitled to recover the same with interest.

- 5 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

So far as the prayer in the second application is concerned, the Tribunal took a liberal view that the point in dispute is only with reference to securing prior permission for taking up journey in any airlines other than the national carrier viz., Air India/Indian Airlines, which is considered for several other persons, therefore non-seeking of permission by itself would not disentitle him to recover the charges incurred by him for journey from Bengaluru to Jaipur and back.

- 6 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

“5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the normal practice is to hold the inquiry proceedings closest to the place where the retired employee would be residing if the departmental inquiry continues even after his retirement. Accordingly, it is in consultation with the respondent T.C.Gupta the place of inquiry is fixed at Jaipur as it is closer to his home town Jodhpur. The same is also supported by the fact that the respondent - T.C.Gupta after his retirement utilized the emoluments which are provided by the department for shifting of his residence to his permanent place of residence from the last place of his employment which was Bengaluru in the instant case. In that behalf, the respondent has also submitted travel bills and encashed the amount for having shifted his residence from Bengaluru to Jodhpur. It is in this background, inquiry proceedings was ordered to be held at Jaipur considering that it would be easier for him to attend the inquiry proceedings in traveling the short distance from Jodhpur to Jaipur. 6. However, it is stated that subsequently, ie., after four months from the date of his retirement, the respondent has again come back to Bengaluru and has been traveling from Bengaluru to Jaipur and he is seeking refund of the traveling expenses as if Bengaluru is his permanent place of residence as stated by him in Form No.5. Thereby it is seen that

- 7 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

he is guilty of one more misconduct in declaring Bengaluru as his permanent place of residence after retirement on 6.6.2014, which is ahead of his date of retirement i.e., 30.9.2014 and thereafter seeking reimbursement for shifting of his residence from Bengaluru to Jodhpur and collecting the same. In fact, though the said act on the part of respondent could be considered as an irregularity, he should have stopped at that. Instead, it is seen that he has again come back to Bengaluru and relying upon his declaration in Form No.5 is seeking reimbursement of his journey expenses from Bengaluru to Jaipur and back for attending to the inquiry proceedings, which is conducted against him. In this behalf, it is stated that he has already submitted bills and received reimbursement to the tune of Rs.2,18,591/ and further submitted many more bills for a sum of Rs. 1,33,287/-. 7. With this, it is clearly seen that the intention of the respondent is not virtuous and so also his conduct i.e., he should have stuck to his stand in stating that Jodhpur is his residence, that too, after receiving the emoluments for having shifted his residence from Bengaluru to Jodhpur and after having received the shifting expenses, he had no right to seek traveling allowance between Jaipur and Bengaluru in the guise of traveling expenses to attend the departmental inquiry proceedings initiated and conducted against him. In that view of the

- 8 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

matter, it is clearly seen that a serious error is committed by him deliberately with an intention to make unlawful gain which is surprisingly not seen by the Tribunal. Therefore, in the aforesaid background this Court would hold that the finding of the Tribunal with reference to allowing the application in OA.No.431/2017 is unreasonable as well as unsustainable in law. 8. Now coming to the finding of the Tribunal on the application in OA.No.432/2017, again it has turned a blind eye to the irregularities committed by the respondent T.C.Gupta. Admittedly, the respondent being an officer of Union of India, no doubt he was eligible and entitled to journey in National Carrier, namely Indian Airlines/Air India whenever he was required to travel from his last place of residence to the place of inquiry when the same was pending. It is seen that if at all, for any reason, there is no direct Airline facility between the place of his residence and place of inquiry, he is entitled to travel in any Airlines subject to condition that he would be taking prior permission as required under OM No.19024/1/2009-E-iv issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, on 7.6.2016 and also under OM issued in F.No.27017/9/2016-Ad.VI(A) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 19.8.2016,

- 9 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

where relaxation is provided subject to submitting a request atleast 7 days prior to taking up the journey. 9. In the instant case, it is clearly seen that the respondent has not taken steps to indicate his intention to travel in any Airlines other than Air India/Indian Airlines and he has also not sought permission from the department in that behalf, which clearly goes to show that he has shown disrespect to the Rules resulting in financial loss to the State, which is not at all considered by the Tribunal and the same is taken so casually as if when others have drawn the expenses incurred by them why not the respondent, is the approach by the Tribunal. The method in which the problem is approached by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. In fact, the impugned order in other words would support breach of procedure by the respondent employee in legitimising the financial indiscipline in the department. In fact, the Tribunal had observed this in the order impugned at paragraph 8, which reads as under: “xxxxxx The delay in passing these claims raises obvious doubt about respondent's malice against the applicant. This could be a reaction to the applicant's intemperate, disrespectful, and borderline abusive style, which we take this opportunity to warm him against. His request, however, for grant of exemption, prima facie, appears to be reasonable and deserves to be considered favourably."

- 10 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

This observation clearly indicates that the Tribunal has seen that the conduct of respondent is intemperate and his behavior is wrong and with reference to his conduct though there is an attempt to censure him, the same is not done properly, on the other hand, he got the relief which he does not deserve. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the common order dated 30.8.2018 passed in Applications No.170/00431/ 2017 and 170/00432/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. Consequently, liberty/permission is reserved to the petitioners for recovery of the amounts which are unlawfully withdrawn by the respondent T.C.Gupta and also to take appropriate steps for initiating an inquiry, if they so desire, with reference to his misconduct in submitting Form No.5 prior to retirement in indicating Bengaluru as his permanent place of residence. Thereafter, in gross violation to said declaration, drawing emoluments for shifting of his residence from the place of service i.e., Bengaluru to the place of residence Jodhpur as indicated in his service record. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed.”

- 11 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

passed the impugned order dated 04.02.2020; when he could not attend the proceedings fixed on that date as he was already out of station due to urgent domestic work. He being a party-in-person, could not make other arrangement at short notice to inform the Court of his absence from Bengaluru. It was also his submission that, this Court has totally ignored the facts of the case as well as legal position of the case, lying on the records. He stated that, the Union of India/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax’s case was that, he mentioned his post retirement address as Jodhpur in Form No.5 submitted on 06.06.2014, however, the Court has held him guilty by holding contrary view that the petitioner has mentioned his post-retirement address as Bengaluru in Form No.5. Form No.5 was required to be submitted six months before the retirement and was submitted on the basis of the circumstances prevailing at that time. Form No.5 has no connection with any of the travelling allowance (‘TA’ for short) claims made.

- 12 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

- 13 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

place of pension is Bengaluru and the enquiry was held in Jaipur, he is entitled to the TA for journeys to Jaipur.

(6) T.A. to retired Government servant. (a) For attending departmental enquiry against him A retired central Government servant required to attend departmental enquiry Instituted against him may be allowed traveling allowance as on tour by the shortest route for the journey in connection with the enquiry from his "home town" (declared as such for

- 14 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

the purposes of the Leave Travel Concession to Central Government servants) to the place of enquiry and back. Alternatively, in case the person concerned has taken up residence after retirement at a place other than his "home town", he may be allowed traveling allowance for journeys from such place of residence to the place of enquiry and back. The place of residence means the place for which post retirement traveling allowance claim was drawn or the place (Bank/Treasury) from which pension is being drawn. However, if at the time of receipt of summons, the retired Government servant is at a place different from his "home town" or place of residence, the traveling allowance should be restricted to the shorter of the two journeys between that place to the place of enquiry and the "home town"/place of residence to the place of enquiry. The traveling allowance shall be regulated in accordance with the pay of the post held by the retired Government servant immediately prior to retirement. No advance of traveling allowance should, however, be paid in connection with such journeys. [G.I., M.F., U.O. Note 3221-E. IV (B)/61, dated the 20th November, 1961.]” (Emphasis supplied)

The instruction contemplates a situation where an enquiry is being held against a government servant at a third place, that is neither at Jaipur or Bengaluru (in the

- 15 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

present case). This we say so because, the place of residence has been defined to mean the place for which post-retirement TA claim was drawn or the place from which pension is being drawn. So in that sense, between the place (Bengaluru) from which pension is being drawn or the place (Jodhpur/Jaipur) for which post-retirement allowance was drawn, the retired government servant shall not be entitled to TA even if the enquiry is being held at one place. Otherwise, the circular would have clarified so. It necessarily means that, he shall be entitled to TA to a third place (e.g. Mumbai), where enquiry is being held, either from the place for which post-retirement allowance was drawn (Jodhpur/Jaipur) or place of residence (Bengaluru) and the same shall be restricted to the shorter of the two journeys. So, his plea on which the review is being sought cannot be accepted and we find that there is no merit in RP No.88/2022.

- 16 -

RP No.88/2022 c/w RP No.89/2022

extent of this Court’s order in paragraphs No.8 and 9. We have seen the conclusion of this Court in the said paragraphs. We find no error apparent on the face of the record.

Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE