Back
2021 Supreme(Gau) 379
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Varshaty Das, D/o Lt. A.C.Das – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 7 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 2877 of 2021
Decided on : 10-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, Shri S.K. Hazarika, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. S. Barua, Shri B. Chakravarty, Shri B. Gogoi, SC, Ms. A. Talukdar, adv
Headnote:
Indian Administrative Service (appointment by promotion) Regulation 1995, - Indian Administrative Service in terms of Regulation III - Petitioner has put to challenge action of Department in initiating a disciplinary proceeding against her by issuing a Show Cause Notice - primary ground of challenge is that such initiation is based on an anonymous complaint which is not permissible under law - Petitioner has also alleged that aforesaid anonymous complaint has been lodged not only to harass petitioner but also to cause impediment in her career progress - petitioner is presently working as a Deputy Commissioner of Taxes at - She has served for a long span from when she had joined Department as a Superintendent of Taxes and has been promoted from time to time and vide a notification she has been posted to present post - petitioner, who is eligible for consideration for conferment into was considered by a duly constituted committee and was found to be eligible - As a requirement for such conferment, an Integrity Certificate is one of criterion - Held, Court to interfere in proceeding in view of clear mandate laid down by Office Memorandum of the Government of India - Further CVC Circulation fortifes aforesaid position - It appears that Office Memorandum has been issued to prevent harassment which may be faced by competent and eligible officers in their service career and with Court purpose same have been issued and that purpose and object should not be allowed to be frustrated in a case of Court present nature where allegations, per se also appears to be mere error of judgment, as has been held by Commissioner of Taxation and Services in Communication - Court is of opinion that the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated vide the Show Cause Notice dated is liable to be interfered with and same is accordingly set aside - Consequently, it is made clear that there would be no bar for issuance of Integrity Certificate on ground of pendency of Disciplinary Proceeding - Writ Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by
Shri S.K. Hazarika, learned counsel. Ms. S. Barua, learned counsel is present for the respondent no.1-The Union of India whereas Shri B. Chakravarty, learned counsel has represented the respondent no. 2-The Union Public Service Commission. The respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 of the State are represented by Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance (Taxation) Department and Ms. A. Talukdar, the learned State Counsel for respondent no. 7.
2. The petitioner has put to challenge the action of the Department in initiating a disciplinary proceeding against her by issuing a Show Cause Notice dated 03.04.2021. The primary ground of challenge is that such initiation is based on an anonymous complaint which is not permissible under the law. The petitioner has also alleged that the aforesaid anonymous complaint has been lodged not only to harass the petitioner but also to cause impediment in her career progress.
3. Before dealing with the issue which falls for determination, it would be convenient to place on record the basic facts of the case in brief.
4. The petitioner is presently working as a Deputy Commissioner of Taxes at Guwahati. She has served for a long span from the year 1993 when she had joined the Department as a Superintendent of Taxes and has been promoted from time to time and vide a notification dated 31.10.2019, she has been posted to the present post.
5. The petitioner, who is eligible for consideration for conferment into the Indian Administrative Service in terms of Regulation III of the Indian Administrative Service (appointment by promotion) Regulation 1995, was considered by a duly constituted committee and was found to be eligible. As a requirement for such conferment, an Integrity Certificate is one of the criterion. When the process was at the stage of finality, it appears that an anonymous complaint was lodged by one Shri P. Sharma on 20.01.2021.
6. In the said complaint, allegations have been made primarily with regard to 3(three) promotions which were alleged to be done without following the Rules. The names of the beneficiaries were also stated in the letter which are Shri Kamal Sarmah, Shri Tamal Bose and Shri Tapan Kr. Baishya. It has been alleged that the aforesaid beneficiaries were given promotion dehors the Rules.
7. As indicated above, no details or antecedents whatsoever has been divulged in the letter regarding the author. This Court has further noticed that copy has also been marked to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary of the State. It may be noted that though the letter is dated 20.01.2021, the allegations concerning the promotion is of the period 2018-19. It appears that based on the said complaint, a Show Cause Notice dated 03.04.2021 has been issued to the petitioner along with a statement of allegations.
8. The petitioner has replied to the said Show Cause Notice on 09.04.2021 whereby it has been stated that all the allegations pertaining to the promotion of the 3(three) incumbents were incorrect and the promotion were done by following the prevailing norms in the Department.
9. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the fact of initiation of the Disciplinary Proceeding vide the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 03.04.2021 is not permissible in law in view of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, etc. By the said Office Memorandum, guidelines have been laid down for handling complaints in the Ministries/Departments.
10. The Office Memorandum categorically directs that anonymous and pseudonymous complaints should not be taken into consideration and no action is required to be taken and such complaints are required to be simplified. The Office Memorandum further clarifies that no such action is to be taken irrespective of the nature of the allegations. It is submitted that though the petitioner has submitted h
