PEDDANNA Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Inspector of Income-tax was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry. An erquiry Officer was appointed to enquire in to the charges framed against him and after receiving the report of the enquiry officer, the competent authority issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer and why these findings should not be accepted. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on a consideration of which, the competent authority pa sed final orders, the operative portion of which reads as follows:-

(2.) Mr. O. Adinaraysna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions before me. The first contention is that the impugned order imposes two punishments for the same offence and is therefore contrary to the CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner has not only been reverted to the lower post of Upper Division Clerk and further his salary has also been reduced to the last rung in the pay scale of Upper Division Clerk. Such a double punishment is not contemplated by the Rules. The second contention is that the denial of the petitioner's request to engage an Advocate at the enquiry amounts to denial of reasonable and adequate opportunity and that it vitiates the final orders.

(3.) I will take up the second contention first. According to Rule 14(8) (a) of the aforesaid rules "the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting Officer, appointed by the Disciplinary authority, having regand to the circumstances of the case, so permits". According to this Rule, the petitioner can claim no right to have a legal practitioner. However, it has been held by the Supreme Court in C.L. Subramaniam vs. Collector of Customs Cochin that where the Government has appointed a trained prosecutor to present its case against the Government servant, it is but necessary that the government servent should he permitted to engage a legal practitioner and that refusal te do so, vitiates the enquiry. But in this case it is not brought to my notice that the presenting officer appointed by the department was a trained legal practitioner. Once that is so, the refusal of the enquiry officer to permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner to appear for him at such enquiry cannot be said to amount to denial of a reasonable and adequate opportunity, cor can it vitiate the enquiry. This contention of the learned counsel is accordingly rejected.