LAWS(J&K)-1979-2-3

S P MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On February 22, 1979
S P Mehta Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, S. P. Mehta, who is an employee of the Income -tax Department, has been called upon by -respondent No: 1 to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service vide his order No: Con. D. P./1369/vs/98 dated 24 -5 -1978. By his other order No: Con. F .P./1369/Vs/99 also bearing the same date, respondent No: 1 has placed the petitioner under suspension in exercise of the power vested in him under Sub -Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter the Service Rules). The facts leading to the issuance of these orders may be recounted as below:

(2.) THE petitioner was informed by respondent No: 1 on 3 -10 -1977 vide his No: Con. D. P. 1369/Vs/392, that under the Department of Revenue and Banking (Revenue Wing) New Delhis order No: C -14012/7/77 -Ad. VI (A) dated 15 -6 -1977 he had been appointed as Disciplinary Authority to hold enquiry into certain charges against him. On the same date by another letter No: Con. D. P. 1369/Vs/387, the articles of charge, the facts and circumstances constituting the same and the evidence both oral and documentary supporting the same were also communicated to the petitioner, and he was told to submit his replies thereto within ten days from the date he received the said letter. The charges were five in number, out of which four related to lack of integrity and devotion to duty as well as conduct unbecoming of a Government servant exhibited by him in applying a scheme known as "scheme to help new tax prayers in small income group" to his mother -in -law Smt. Raj Rani and assessing her for the assessment year 1968 -69 to 1972 -73, while he remained posted as Income -Tax Officer C Ward, Srinagar. The fifth charge related to his failure to report to the prescribed authority the fact of taking an insurance policy the annual premium whereof exceeded Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted his replies to the aforesaid charges denying each of them. The enquiry was then handed over to respondent No : 3, who recorded the preliminary statement of the petitioner at New Delhi on 23 -1 -1978 wherein the latter again denied all the charges leveled against him. He was also directed by respondent No : 3 to go through all the documents sought to be relied upon against him during the enquiry and submit a list of the witnesses whom he would like to examine as well as a list of any other documents which he would like to produce in defence. This he had to do by or on 10th Feb : 1978. The dates for recording the evidence were initially fixed for 6th, 7th and 8th March, 1978 at New Delhi, but it appears, that later on the venue for holding the enquiry was shifted to Srinagar at the request of the Presenting Officer and the dates for recording the evidence were also changed to 8th, 9th and 10th of March, 1978. The petitioner submitted two lists of the witnesses and documents which he proposed to produce in defence. The first list containing the names of 8 witnesses and particulars of 13 files pertaining to different family assesses was submitted by him on 9th Feb: 1978 whereas the second list containing the names of six more witnesses and particulars of fifteen more files was submitted by him on 22nd Feb : 1978. The petitioner also asked for the services of one Mr. B. L. Dhawan, a Government employee to assist him during the enquiry, but he being preoccupied with some other work, a prayer was made by the petitioner that instead of Mr. Dhawan one T. S. Bedi, another Government employee may be engaged as the Assisting Officer. He too was not engaged and respondent No: 3 conducted the entire enquiry in the absence of an Assisting Officer. Four out of eight witnesses mentioned in the first list were examined by the Enquiry Officer, respondent No. 3, and six out of 13 files of the first list were summoned by him. Four out of six witnesses mentioned in the second list were also examined, but no> document mentioned in it was summoned, and the entire evidence was recorded by 10th March, 1978.