S K TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 18.2.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short the tribunal) in OA No.1265/1995.

(2.) The petitioner entered Indian Revenue Service (IRS) as a direct Class-I Officer in 1968. He was promoted as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in 1979. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with a chargesheet on 29.11.1988 for imposition of major penalty. A raid was also conducted by the CBI on 9.12.1988 at his office and the residential premises. The CBI did not think it appropriate to file the chargesheet and accordingly the seized documents were returned to him on 20.3.1992. As set forth in the petition in April 1988, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommended his name for the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) but eventually he was not extended the benefit of promotion.

(3.) The disciplinary proceeding that was initiated vide charge memo dated 29.11.1988 continued. An additional charge memo was served on him on 26.7.1989. The petitioner was found guilty in respect of the additional charge levelled against him and eventually the penalty of dismissal was imposed vide order dated 11.7.1994. Being dissatisfied with the order of penalty of dismissal, the petitioner addressed a memorial dated 30.8.1994 to the President of India but there was no response to the same. The order of dismissal was assailed before the tribunal in the original application. It was contended before the tribunal that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity during the enquiry as a consequence of which the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated; that he was not allowed reasonable opportunity to examine the material defence witnesses; that the enquiry officer rejected the testimony of the defence witnesses in a most cryptic manner and further the enquiry officer did not consider the stand and stance put forth during his defence and, hence, the enquiry report did not deserve to be accepted; that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was based on conjectures and it was basically a case of no evidence; and that the expert evidence was accepted without following the due procedure of law.