CHAKHAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appellant, Bharatendra Nath Bhattacharya, joined the Income-tax Department as an Inspector on 6-8-1949 and while working in that capacity, was appointed to officiate as a temporary Income-tax Officer, Class II Grade III "until further orders. " It appears that at the same time, several other persons were similarly appointed to officiate in posts of temporary Income-tax Officers of the Class and Grade concerned -- apparently posts newly created. The copy of the order of appointment forwarded to the appointees, including the appellant, contained the following warning:"if their output is not un to the required standard or if for any reason their work is found unsatisfactory, they are liable to be reverted. "

( 2 ) THE tenure of the appointment which the appellant got was thus a very precarious one. It was only to last until further orders and it was liable to be terminated, if he was not found fit to hold the post.

( 3 ) THE appellant failed to qualify for a favourable opinion of his superior Officers. A number of adverse remarks against him were entered in the Character Roll for the year 1951-1952. One of these remarks considered the appellant's equipments from nine points of view and declared him to be poor in every respect; another commented unfavourably on his bearing as an Officer and the method he employed in the discharge of his duties, while a third referred to the meagreness of his collection figures and attributed the same to a lack of proper attention. The last referred to his disposals which were stated to have been "much below the minimum standard prescribed. " This remark also mentioned a certain complaint against the appellant regarding the performance of Election duties, but except staring that the complaint was under investigation, it did not make any misconduct or inefficiency regarding the performance of those duties the subject-matter of any adverse comment.

( 4 ) THE last of the adverse remarks I have just summarised bore the date of 30-6-1952. It appears that shortly thereafter, the appellant's conduct as an Election Officer came to be considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax. By an order passed by the Commissioner on 18-7-1952, the appellant was severely censured and a copy of the order was directed to be placed in his confidential Character Roll.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the usual practice, the appellant was supplied with a copy of the adverse remarks with a direction that he should endeavour to eradicate the defects which had been noticed in him. It was, however, added that if the appellant wished to offer any explanation concerning the adverse remarks, he could do so within a month and that if, on a consideration of his explanation, the Commissioner of Income-tax was satisfied that the adverse remarks needed modification, they would be suitably modified. In pursuance of the liberty given to him, the appelknt furnished an explanation in regard to each of the remarks, but it was not considered satisfactory. By an order passed on 16-4-1953, the Commissioner of Income-tax observed that there was a number ot allegations against the appellant which were under investigation and that the facts and circumstances, as they stood then, would not justify any modification of the adverse remarks.

( 6 ) ABOUT a week later, another order was passed by the Commissioner in the form of a letter to the appellant. It was dated 24-4-1953. By it the appellant was reminded that he had been appointed to officiate as an Income-tax Officer, Class II, Grade III, only until further orders. The letter went on to say that the Departmental promotion Committee had considered the appellant's case for further continuance as an Income-tax Officer in the light of the reports contained in his Confidential Character Roll and had found him unfit for further retention in view of the unsatisfactory nature of his work. The letter also recalled that the appellant had been apprised of the adverse remarks made against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document