various charges leveled against him.
The enquiry was principally based on the assessment records made by the appellant in the case of the several assessees.
The suit was companytested by the Union of India which affirmed that the suspension and dismissal were both legal and operative and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
As the Enquiry was proceeding, the Commissioner of Income tax served a third Charge Sheet dated 27 10 1953, being supplemental to the Charge Sheets which were already under enquiry.
This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court dated 30 7 1969 reversing the decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow dated 1 1 1964 in Regular Suit No.
The order was dated 6 7 1953.
He was generally of the view that there was numbermaterial before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the plaintiff companyld be found guilty of the.
The nature and extent of the delinquency on the part of the appellant were highlighted in these particulars.
The appellant, as required under the third Charge Sheet, submitted his explanation thereto on 27 4 1954.
Between 25th June, 1949 and 16th October, 1950, he was posted at Agra as Income tax Officer, Ward B. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kanpur.
The appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises on 29 8 1958 asking for the following reliefs a a declaration that the plaintiff is still in service and entitled to all emoluments, pay, dearness allowances, annual increments and privileges and that the suspension order dated 23 1 1953 and dismissal order dated 28 7 1955 were illegal, ultra vires and void and ineffectual against the plaintiff b that a decree for Rupees 26,897.25 p. should be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the Union of.
This second memo is number of much importance because the charges therein have number figured in appeal.
The three Charge Sheets referred to above were attached to the plaint as Schedules II, III and IV.
The appellant submitted his explanations to the two charge sheets on 6 6 1952 and 24 10 1952 respectively.
He was promoted as an officiating Inspector in 1943 and as Income tax Officer in 1946.
Detailed particulars on the basis of which the charges had been made were given in Annexure A attached to the Charge Sheet.
The learned Trial Judge framed as many as 11 issues.
The Enquiry Officer had to question the appellant from time to time as to what he had to say with regard to the various items of irregular or erroneous assessment and his replies were duly numbered.
This Charge Sheet also had an Annexure in which particulars in great detail were given with regard to the dishonest manner in which the assessments had been made by the appellant in the case of the firms mentioned in the First Charge Sheet.
A number of points were raised by the Enquiry Officer and the appellant submitted his explanation in writing.
On some others he did number record any findings at.
In the First Charge Sheet the principal charge was that he had made under assessments and caused loss of revenue.
The appellant, accordingly, submitted his companyments on 13 1 1955 and 20 1 1955.
The names of seven business firms were given in that companynection 2 that the appellant disposed of assessments in the case of six firms hurriedly and leniently on the eve of his departure and after the receipt of his transfer orders from Agra which also resulted in loss of revenue.
Aggrieved by that order, the Union of India went in appeal before the High Court.
India.
Six names of the assessee firms were also given 3 that he tampered with the records in two cases, the names of the two assessees were given 4 that he disregarded the orders of the Commissioner in the case of two named assessees although he was required by the Commissioner to make an enquiry on the companyplaint filed by one C. K. Telang.
On the basis of the report, the Commissioner of Income tax issued a memo dated 8th March, 1952 to the appellant and this memo is described in these proceedings as the first charge sheet.
On 24 12 1954, the Commissioner issued a letter to the appellant enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer and the appellant was required to submit his companyments thereon before any further action was taken.
It was stated therein that in addition to the charges already framed against the appellant and companymunicated to him by the Office Memo dated 8 3 1952 he was further charged that he had abnormally delayed his report in two cases.
The Trial Court had raised 11 issues.
It companytained 4 charges l that the appellant did number properly handle seven stated cases which resulted in loss of revenue.
Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer framed a questionnaire to which also the appellant made his reply.
The matter came for hearing before a Division Bench companysisting of Laxmi Prasad and G.S. Lal, JJ.
The appellant joined service as a Junior Clerk in the Income tax Department in 1925.
That Officer entered upon the enquiry by issuing a letter to the appellant on 23 7 1953 requiring the appellant to appear before him at Kanpur on 25 7 1953.
This Charge Sheet companytained 3 charges 1 it was alleged that the appellant had failed to obtain the previous sanction for the purchase of two immovable properties both at Lucknow, and had failed to make a declaration, as required under the Conduct Rules 2 that the companyt of the two Lucknow properties and other assets acquired by the appellant were far in excess of his legitimate pecuniary resources giving rise to the reasonable presumption that he had been accepting illegal gratification in the companyrse of the discharge of his duties 3 that while performing his duties a he deliberately and with dishonest motive made under assessments resulting in loss to revenue with a view to make illegal gains for himself in the case of assessment of nine firms and b that he manipulated and tampered with Government records or made false statements in the cases of five assessees who were also named.
36 of 1958.
Ultimately the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 16 7 1954 to the Commissioner of Income tax.
Though it was number necessary to companysider in de tail the various cases in which dishonest under assessment was alleged, they companysidered the cases with a view to see whether there was evidence for the findings of the Commissioner of Income tax who passed the order of dismissal.
After the perusal of these companyments the Commissioner of Income tax issued a show cause numberice dated 5 5 1955 to the appellant recording therein that he companycurred with the Enquiry Officers findings in respect of all the charges and had companye to the provisional companyclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service should be awarded.
The appellant was asked to show cause why the above mentioned punishment should number be imposed on him.
The 14 assessees named under the third charge are mostly the assessees mentioned in the First Charge Sheet.
After companysidering the replies, the Income tax Commissioner passed an order of dismissal on 28 7 1955 Ext.
In the third Charge Sheet the charge is more aggravated, because it is stated that the under assessment was deliberate and dishonest with a view to make illegal gain for himself.
The appellant was also required to show cause in writing why he should number be suitably dealt with.
Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit.
Be companysidered some of them cursorily.
The appellant sent two sets of replies to the show cause numberice one on 26 5 1955 and the other on 10 6 1955.
They are Exhibits 54 and 55.
After companysidering the explanations, the Commissioner appointed by his order dated 13 4 1953 Shri G.S. Srivastava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as the Enquiry Officer for companyducting enquiry into the charges already companymunicated.
The principal judgment was delivered by Lal, J. Laxmi Prasad, J. agreed with most of the findings with which we are number companycerned, recorded by Lal, J. The learned Judges held that the appellant had been dismissed from service after holding the necessary enquiry and after affording reasonable opportunity to defend.
Since companyplaints had been received with regard to his work at Agra, Shri R.N. Srivastava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, made some preliminary enquiries and reported the matter to the Commissioner of Income tax.
The description of the two cases was then given.
The appellant promptly objected to Mr. Srivastavas appointment as the Enquiry Officer, whereupon the Commissioner cancelled that appointment and appointed Shri V.S. Sundramurti Mudaliar, Deputy Director of Inspection Investigation , New Delhi as the Enquiry Officer.
The appellant had alleged in his plaint 17 grounds challenging the order passed against him.
The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit.
On 17 4 1952 another memo was issued by the Commissioner of Income tax and this was described as a Supplementary Charge Sheet to the previous memo dated 8 3 1952.
It also appears that the learned Judge was of the view that the enquiry was vitiated as numberreasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself.
The appellant was required to show cause in writing within 15 days why he should number be suitably dealt with and was also required to state whether he would like to produce any evidence in his support or would like to be personally heard.
