R C SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and other order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court given by it on 17 November, 1969, dismissing a plaintiff's first appeal arising out of an original suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, on 2nd April, 1956, reducing the appellant in rank from the post of an Income-tax Officer to that of an Income-tax Inspector, was void and inoperative. It appears that the appellant was in service upto 30th April, 1958, when he was prematurely retired. The appellant also claimed Rs. 20,904/- as arrears of salary but he reduced this claim to Rupees 16,561.29.

(2.) The appellant was originally appointed on 22nd November, 1922, as Lower Division Clerk, and, therefore, promoted as Income-tax Inspector in 1942. He was promoted to the post of Income-tax Officer in 1945. His case was that he had worked to the entire satisfaction of his immediate superior officers and higher authorities and had earned a number of certificates highly appreciative of his work. He was confirmed early in 1952 as an Income-tax Officer. he was, however, placed under suspension on 30th September, 1953, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow, on the basis of a preliminary enquiry on allegations involving corruption and violation of service rules. Charges were framed on 30th December, 1953, by Shri A.K. Bose, Deputy Director of Investigations, who was appointed by Commissioner of Income-tax as the Inquiring Officer. The preliminary enquiry had been conducted by Shri G.S. Srivastava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut.

(3.) The first charge was that the appellant had entered into partnership with others, under the name of Gautam Cycle Mart, Meerut, in 1939, in contravention of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules. The second charge was that he had made various investments in the names of various members of his family far in excess of and disproportionate to the known sources of his income. His high standard of living and expenditure were also mentioned there. The third and the last charge gave particulars of thirteen assessment cases in which the appellant was alleged to be either "grossly negligent, careless, inefficient, and/or corrupt in the performance of his duties as Income-tax Officer."