JUDGMENT

BEG, J. :— This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and other order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court given by it on 17 November, 1969, dismissing a plaintiffs first appeal arising out of an original suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, on 2nd April, 1956, reducing the appellant in rank from the post of an Income-tax Officer to that of an Income-tax Inspector, was void and inoperative. It appears that the appellant was in service upto 30th April, 1958, when he was prematurely retired. The appellant also claimed Rs. 20,904/- as arrears of salary but he reduced this claim to Rupees 16,561.29.

2. The appellant was originally appointed on 22nd November, 1922, as Lower Division Clerk, and, therefore, promoted as Income-tax Inspector in 1942. He was promoted to the post of Income-tax Officer in 1945. His case was that he had worked to the entire satisfaction of his immediate superior officers and higher authorities and had earned a number of certificates highly appreciative of his work. He was confirmed early in 1952 as an Income-tax Officer. he was, however, placed under suspension on 30th September, 1953, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow, on the basis of a preliminary enquiry on allegations involving corruption and violation of service rules. Charges were framed on 30th December, 1953, by Shri A.K. Bose, Deputy Director of Investigations, who was appointed by Commissioner of Income-tax as the Inquiring Officer. The preliminary enquiry had been conducted by Shri G.S. Srivastava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut.

3. The first charge was that the appellant had entered into partnership with others, under the name of Gautam Cycle Mart, Meerut, in 1939, in contravention of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. The second charge was that he had made various investments in the names of various members of his family far in excess of and disproportionate to the known sources of his income. His high standard of living and expenditure were also mentioned there. The third and the last charge gave particulars of thirteen assessment cases in which the appellant was alleged to be either "grossly negligent, careless, inefficient, and/or corrupt in the performance of his duties as Income-tax Officer."

4. The appellants defences included alleged confused nature of charges characterized by him as "vague, over-lapping, intermingled" and wrongly joined together. He also pleaded that there had been an enquiry in 1949, by Shri A. R. Suchdeva, Asstt. Inspecting Commissioner, into some of the matters mentioned in the charges, and, about others in 1952 by Shri R. N. Srivastava, another Inspecting Commissioner, and that the appellant had been exonerated of the allegations and imputations made against him on each occasion. One of his defences was that a fresh enquiry into the same charges was not permissible under the Departmental rules and was also barred by rules of natural justice. He also complained of failure to give him opportunity to produce nine witnesses in his defence with some documents.

5. It is evident that the questions raised by the appellant depended on findings of fact. All relevant facts had been examined by the officer who held the enquiry and by the punishing authority. No mala fides against either the Inquiring Officer, Shri A. K. Bose, Deputy Director Investigation, or against the punishing authority was alleged. There are, however, suggestions that Shri G. S. Srivastava and Shri R. N. Srivastava, Inspecting Assistant Commissioners, were pursuing the appellant for some unknown reason which we do not find stated anywhere. We fail to see how these two officers, who neither conducted that actual departmental trial nor could have any influence over the punishing authority, could cause any miscarriage of justice or do anything to vitiate the departmental trial merely because they held preliminary inquiries before frami