Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
HARI PRASAD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 260 Of 1969
Decided On : JULY 01, 1971
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1955 - Rule 3 - Interpretation - Scope - Reasonable opportunity to defend - Inspection of documents - Assistance of lawyer - Compliance with Office Manual - Consultation with Union Public Service Commission - Show cause notice - Speaking order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Income-tax Officer, was placed under suspension and served with a charge-sheet for violation of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of the charge. The petitioner was subsequently removed from service. The petitioner challenged the order of removal on the grounds that the charges were vague, the rule was void for vagueness, the Conduct Rules of 1955 were repealed by the Conduct Rules of 1964, he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry, the Office Manual was not complied with, the Union Public Service Commission was not consulted, the show cause notice was biased and prejudiced, and the order of removal was not a speaking order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the charges were not vague, the rule was not void for vagueness, the Conduct Rules of 1955 were not repealed by the Conduct Rules of 1964, the petitioner was not denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry, the Office Manual was substantially complied with, the Union Public Service Commission was not required to be consulted, the show cause notice was not biased and prejudiced, and the order of removal was a speaking order.
Issues: 1. Whether the charges were vague. 2. Whether the rule was void for vagueness. 3. Whether the Conduct Rules of 1955 were repealed by the Conduct Rules of 1964. 4. Whether the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry. 5. Whether the Office Manual was complied with. 6. Whether the Union Public Service Commission was required to be consulted. 7. Whether the show cause notice was biased and prejudiced. 8. Whether the order of removal was a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The charges were not vague as they were supported by a statement of allegations which gave detailed particulars of the assessments and the circumstances under which they had been made. 2. The rule was not void for vagueness as it contained a clear mandate for the rule of conduct and did not contain a mere pious hope. 3. The Conduct Rules of 1955 were not repealed by the Conduct Rules of 1964 as the latter rules only applied to government servants for their future conduct and did not deal with the past conduct of government servants. 4. The petitioner was not denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry as he was given inspection of all the relevant documents, he was not entitled to be represented by a lawyer, and the Office Manual was substantially complied with. 5. The Union Public Service Commission was not required to be consulted as the President was not the disciplinary authority. 6. The show cause notice was not biased and prejudiced as it was in compliance with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Rule 15 (4) (i) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 7. The order of removal was a speaking order as it referred to the reasons recorded in the Memorandum dated 29th of April 1968.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an application by an erstwhile Income-tax Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of suspension dated 2nd September 1965, the memorandum dated 9th September 1965 containing the charge-sheet against the said officer, the orders dated 30th April, 1966, 18th July, 1966, 3rd October, 1966, the enquiry report dated 29th March 1967, the show cause notice dated 29th April 1968 and the order of removal on the said officer dated 10th February 1969. The petitioner was appointed to officiate as an Income-tax Officer, Class II Grade III of the Income-tax Department, Calcutta, with effect from 22nd November 1954. Thereafter from 1956 to 1959 the petitioner served in various capacities in the districts of Bengal as Income-tax Officer as well as in Calcutta. In July 1959 the petitioner was made quasi-permanent and with effect from 8th April 1960 the petitioner was confirmed as the Income-tax Officer. On the 17th August 1960 the petitioner was posted as the Income-tax Officer 'e' Ward, Special Survey Circle IV, Calcutta. The petitioner also served the Special Survey Circle in various capacities as also in other districts of the Income-tax Department in Calcutta. In October 1963 the petitioner was transferred to hold the charge of D and E Wards of District III-A, Calcutta. It will be relevant at this stage to state that with effect from 30th November 1964 the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955 were repealed by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964- The significance of this date would be evident later on. On the 2nd September 1965 the order of respondent No. 1 was passed under Rule 12 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 placing the petitioner under suspension. This is one of the orders which is under challenge in this application. On the 9th September 1965 the petitioner was charge-sheeted for violation of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955. It would be relevant at this stage to refer to the said charge-sheet. There were two charges against the petitioner. It was stated firstly, that the petitioner while functioning as Income-tax Officer in the Special Survey Circle IV, Calcutta during the period from 9-8-58 to 10-5-61 contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, inasmuch as, (a) the petitioner made assessments in several cases in a dishonest and mala fide manner causing wrongful loss of revenue to the Government; (b) the petitioner displayed gross negligence and/or inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties; and (c) the petitioner tampered with the official records. As a result of the enquiry by the enquiring officer the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges under several heads mentioned above by the enquiring officer. The disciplinary authority however disagreed with the findings of the enquiring officer in so far as Sub-clause (b) of charge 1 referred to hereinabove, that is to say, that the petitioner displayed gross negligence and/or inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties. The disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the said charge had been established. The second charge against the petitioner was that while functioning as Income-tax Officer in Special Survey Circle IV, Calcutta during the period 9th August 1958 to 10th May 1961 he failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding procedure to be followed in making the assessments and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955. The enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner in respect of this charge. The disciplinary authority has also agreed with the said finding of the enquiry officer. On the 17th September 1965 the petitioner asked for inspection of certain documents. Thereafter on the 21st of September, 1965 the petitioner was asked to contact the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incom
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
