BASISTHA NARAIN CHAUDHARY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an Income-tax Officer. He has challenged the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa dated the 27th July, 1964 (Annexure D), which is to the following effect:--

(2.) It has now been decided and the President is pleased to direct that the age of compulsory retirement of Central Government servants should be 58 years subject to the following exceptions:--

(3.) Before discussing these contentions, 1 may refer to the following unchallenged facts. On the 22nd February, 1964, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Commissioner"), sent for the petitioner and told him that there was a proposal to take disciplinary action against him for his negligence and lack of devotion to duty as Income-tax Officer, Ward A, Gaya Circle. He further told him that if the petitioner was unwilling to face the charges he would be retired compulsorily. The petitioner then, on the 5th March, 1964, (Annexure A), informed the Commissioner that he was ready to face the charges. Then specific charges were made against him on the 12th March, 1964, and he was called upon to submit his written statement, if any, to those charges. After some correspondence the petitioner submitted his written statement (Annexure A-l) on the 12th June, 1964, denying the charges. Then, on the 20th June, 1964, (Annexure B), the Commissioner directed one Snri P. L. Malhotra, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Northern Range, to hold a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Centra] Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Shri Malhotra also, on the 20th July. 1964, intimated to the petitioner (Annexure C) about his appointment as Enquiry Officer and directed him to appear before him at Patna on the 4th August, 1964, to give his oral statement with a view to supplement and explain his written statement. He also enquired from the petitioner the names of his witnesses, if any. Seven days later, while the enquiry was pending before Shri Malhotra, the impugned order (Annexure D) was passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner after giving him three months' notice. But notwithstanding this order of retirement, the departmental proceeding continued. Shri Malhotra informed the petitioner on the 6th August, 1964 (Annexure G) that in the departmental proceeding no evidence would be led on behalf of the Income-tax Department in support of the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner also informed the Enquiring Officer that, as no evidence would be led by the Department in support of the charges, he also would not adduce any evidence in defence. Thus, the departmental enquiry remained practically at a standstill. In the meantime the petitioner, on the 14th October, 1964 (Annexure H), submitted a representation to the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, against the order of the Commissioner cornpulsorily retiring him from service. A further representation was submitted (Annexure I) on the 2nd April, 1965, and again on the 5th August, 1965 (Annexure I). On the 7th September, 1965 (Annexure K), he was informed by the Commissioner that his representation addressed to the superior authorities was rejected. On the same day the Commissioner informed him (Annexure K-l) that the departmental proceedings against him was dropped. Till the 7th September, 1965, therefore, the petitioner was described as Income-tax Officer on leave, both on his own representations to superior authorities (Annexures H, I and J) and in the latter addressed to him by the Commissioner (Annexures K and K-l).