B.N.P.SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction against the respondent -authorities for quashing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 30.8.2005, passed in O.A. No. 464 of 1997 and the order of punishment like that of reduction to lower grade in service awarded to him by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna.

(2.) BEFORE we consider the merits of the matter at the admission stage, we would like to highlight and place on record the fundamental principles and relevant proposition of law for the purpose of entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is designed and devised to redress the grievance meted out in case of any violation of law, fundamental rights or any recognizable injury sustained. The jurisdiction of the Writ Court is plenary, extraordinary, discretinoary and equitable. It cannot be allowed to be exercised as an appellate forum. The scope of Article 226 in a case like one on hand, where departmental proceedings are questioned, becomes very narrower.

(3.) FOLLOWING chronological date -wise events/material facts, as mentioned by the petitioner, may be highlighted at this juncture: Date 21.2.1986 Facts Petitioner was. subjected to CBI search and an FIR was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Patna. 2.11.1987 After the investigation and on receipt of final form, the criminal case was dropped by the Special Judge, CBI, Patna for want of sufficient evidence. 23.5.1998 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, issued a memorandum of charge sheet on alleged disproportionate asset worth Rs. 84,237/ - 6.6.1988 In reply to the notice to the memorandum of charge sheet, the petitioner pleaded not guilty. 10.10.1988 Presenting Officer requested the inquiry officer to add nine more witnesses to the list of three witnesses and the same was allowed by the inquiry officer. 16.7.1990 Pre -recorded statements of only three witnesses to the charge sheet were supplied to the petitioner, but pre - recorded statements of nine additional witnesses were not supplied to the petitioner. 28.12.1988, 9.6.1989 and 26.7. 1989 The petitioner requested for supply of copies of 23 documents and the same was allowed, but subsequently disallowed. However, inspection of rest 22 documents was only allowed. 1.8.1989 The petitioner filed a petition before the inquiry officer for supply of such additional documents, but it was not considered. 26.3.1990 & 30.5.1990 Presenting Officer was directed by the enquiry officer to furnish non -availability certificate in respect of 12 additional documents. When this was not done, the petitioner made representation before the enquiry officer. 1.2.1991 and 7.2.1991 The petitioner requested the enquiry officer to arrange for furnishing of details of income, expenditure and assets and also addition of further defence documents and witnesses. The same was not allowed by the inquiry officer. 19.6.1991 & 20.6.1991 Five State witnesses were examined as SW 1 to SW 5 wherein 4 SWs named in the application for additional 9 witnesses were examined as SW 2 to 5. 25.6.1991 & 3.9.1985 2.8.1991 The petitioner made a representation before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Disciplinary Authority, Patna and a letter was enclosed which showed that the department was intimated about the properties acquired by his wife. Inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer was sent to the petitioner. 18.10.1991 16.9.1992 & 28.4.1994 19.10.1992 24.10.1994 4.1.1995 and 16.12.1994 The petitioner made a representation to the disciplinary authority that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was not correct. The petitioner also made a representation to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi Respondent while forwarding a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner for his comment did not forward any recommendation in the matter of proposed punishment even though the petitioner requested for the same. Disciplinary authority finalised the proceeding by imposing the unwarranted penalty of reduction to lower post/grade/service of Inspector of Income Tax for unspecified period. The review petition of the petitioner was decided and an appeal was filed before the President of India. 22.5.1996 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 284 of 1996 gave a direction to decide the appeal within two months from the date of order. 11.11.1996 & 23.9.1996 The Government of India, Ministry of Finance passed belated order and communicated to the applicant vide Income -Tax Officer, Inquiries (Admn.), Patna confirming the order of punishment of reduction of rank. 30.8.2005 The petitioner filed O.A. No. 464 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was admitted and after hearing, the same was dismissed. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also given our anxious thought and considered the relevant propositions of law and the jurisdictional sweep of all these over the decision reached by the disciplinary authority and after having been decided by the Tribunal.