BALBIR KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/6851/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Balbir Kumar, a former Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, who faced disciplinary action for allegedly tampering with and defacing seized documents during his tenure in 2001-2002. The documents were related to the Ashish Munjal Group's search cases. Kumar contested the charges, but the Inquiry Officer found him guilty, leading to a penalty of reduction in pay. His appeals to the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were unsuccessful. The High Court upheld the disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that the inquiry was thorough and the penalties were justified based on the evidence presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 723474 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMANPREET SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: V K SHARMA
• Keywords: Disciplinary Proceedings; Inquiry report; Tampering of documents; Defacement; Union Public Service Commission advice
• Section: 3(1)(i); 3(1)(iii); 14(18)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 03, 2014 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 03, 2014 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 03, 2014 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 03, 2014 Balbir Kumar Balbir Kumar Balbir Kumar Balbir Kumar ....... PETITIONER ....... PETITIONER ....... PETITIONER ....... PETITIONER VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS ..... RESPONDENTS ..... RESPONDENTS ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI PRESENT: Mr. VK Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Amanpreet Sandhu, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 formal party. ... SANJAY KISHAN KAUL SANJAY KISHAN KAUL SANJAY KISHAN KAUL SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CJ. (Oral) , CJ. (Oral) , CJ. (Oral) , CJ. (Oral) The conduct of the petitioner while functioning as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana, during the Financial Year 2001-2002 came into question on account of alleged tempering and defacement of seized documents pertaining to search cases of a particular assessee. The petitioner is alleged to have made a false allegation thereafter against the Commissioner of Income Tax alleging that the seized documents, including the defaced one, had been opened in his presence. This gave rise to the following Articles of Kang Gursharan Singh 2014.07.04 16:23 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 2 Charges :- “ “ “ “Article I Article I Article I Article I That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during the financial year 2001-2002 tampered with and the financial year 2001-2002 tampered with and the financial year 2001-2002 tampered with and the financial year 2001-2002 tampered with and defaced the seized documents pertaining to the defaced the seized documents pertaining to the defaced the seized documents pertaining to the defaced the seized documents pertaining to the Ashish Munjal Group of search cases, while the same Ashish Munjal Group of search cases, while the same Ashish Munjal Group of search cases, while the same Ashish Munjal Group of search cases, while the same were lying in his custody. This was done by Shri were lying in his custody. This was done by Shri were lying in his custody. This was done by Shri were lying in his custody. This was done by Shri Balbir Kumar with ulterior motive and in collusion Balbir Kumar with ulterior motive and in collusion Balbir Kumar with ulterior motive and in collusion Balbir Kumar with ulterior motive and in collusion with the assessee, thereby jeopardising the interests with the assessee, thereby jeopardising the interests with the assessee, thereby jeopardising the interests with the assessee, thereby jeopardising the interests of revenue. of revenue. of revenue. of revenue. By his above acts Shri Balbir Kumar failed to By his above acts Shri Balbir Kumar failed to By his above acts Shri Balbir Kumar failed to By his above acts Shri Balbir Kumar failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant, thereby violating the Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) servant, thereby violating the Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) servant, thereby violating the Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) servant, thereby violating the Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II Article II Article II Article II That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while That the said Shri Balbir Kumar while functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during functioning as DCIT Central Circle-I Ludhiana during the financial year 2001-2002 made a false and the financial year 2001-2002 made a false and the financial year 2001-2002 made a false and the financial year 2001-2002 made a false and baseless allegation against Sh. Subhash Kumar, the baseless allegation against Sh. Subhash Kumar, the baseless allegation against Sh. Subhash Kumar, the baseless allegation against Sh. Subhash Kumar, the CIT, Central, Ludhiana, by stating that the seized CIT, Central, Ludhiana, by stating that the seized CIT, Central, Ludhiana, by stating that the seized CIT, Central, Ludhiana, by stating that the seized documents pertaining to the Ashish Munjal Group, documents pertaining to the Ashish Munjal Group, documents pertaining to the Ashish Munjal Group, documents pertaining to the Ashish Munjal Group, received from the Investigation Wing, had been received from the Investigation Wing, had been received from the Investigation Wing, had been received from the Investigation Wing, had been opened in his (Sh. Subhash Kumar's) presence, as opened in his (Sh. Subhash Kumar's) presence, as opened in his (Sh. Subhash Kumar's) presence, as opened in his (Sh. Subhash Kumar's) presence, as desired by him and that Sh. Subhash Kumar had desired by him and that Sh. Subhash Kumar had desired by him and that Sh. Subhash Kumar had desired by him and that Sh. Subhash Kumar had given a cursory look into each and every document, given a cursory look into each and every document, given a cursory look into each and every document, given a cursory look into each and every document, including the defaced ones, vis-a-vis the Appraisal including the defaced ones, vis-a-vis the Appraisal including the defaced ones, vis-a-vis the Appraisal including the defaced ones, vis-a-vis the Appraisal Report already received by him from the Report already received by him from the Report already received by him from the Report already received by him from the Investigation Wing. Investigation Wing. Investigation Wing. Investigation Wing. By his above act, Shri Balbir Kumar exhibited By his above act, Shri Balbir Kumar exhibited By his above act, Shri Balbir Kumar exhibited By his above act, Shri Balbir Kumar exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant, conduct unbecoming of a government servant, conduct unbecoming of a government servant, conduct unbecoming of a government servant, thereby violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) thereby violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) thereby violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) thereby violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” Rules, 1964.” Rules, 1964.” Rules, 1964.” Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 3 The disciplinary proceedings were, thereafter, conducted as the petitioner contested the case but the Inquiry Officer, vide inquiry report dated 18.11.2005, found both the charges proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 2.11.2006 agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, after having obtained the advice from the Union Public Service Commission to whom it was referred for statutory advice. A penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages till his superannuation without the right to earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and after the expiry of this period, the reduction having an effect of postponing the future increments of pay, was imposed. The aforesaid orders and proceedings were assailed by the petitioner in Original Application No.143-PB of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench which, however, dismissed the petition vide impugned order dated 15.11.2007 which is sought to be assailed before this Court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may observe at the threshold that the inquiry report, the order of the disciplinary authority and the impugned order are extremely elaborate, discussing all the material in support of the Articles of Charges. This Court certainly does not sit as a court of appeal over these findings. Learned counsel for the petitioner, fully conscious of this limit of our jurisdiction, sought to confine the submissions within the following four Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 4 corners:- i) the original document relating to charge No.1 was not produced during the inquiry and it is by inference that the finding has been arrived at; ii)there is delay in the departmental proceedings; iii)request of the petitioner for change of the Inquiry Officer on the ground of bias was rejected; iv)copy of the advice of the Union Public Service Commission was not made available to the petitioner before awarding the punishment; and v)the mandate of Rule 14(18) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (for short 'the Rules') was not complied with. A perusal of the departmental proceedings, however, shows that qua the first grievance, the petitioner himself inspected the original documents, including the defaced document, without raising any dispute about their authenticity. The original documents were released to the assessee by the department in October, 2005, whereafter, the petitioner sought to raise objections which were general in character and, thus, the finding had been correctly recorded that the petitioner having seen the original defaced document, could not raise this issue subsequently as if there was inadequacy of opportunity to the petitioner. As far as the delay in proceedings is concerned, there are categorical findings in the impugned order that though, undoubtedly, directions were passed on petitions filed by the Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 5 petitioner for an early conclusion of the inquiry, by the Tribunal or the High Court, the delay has been occasioned on account of the conduct of the petitioner himself. The delay is stated to be attributable to the time period spent by the petitioner especially in inspection of the documents and, thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by claiming that despite such elaborate process having been followed, the same should be brought to a naught only on the basis of an alleged delay. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the third plea of bias is predicated on the Inquiry Officer being subservient to the Commissioner of Income Tax, allegations qua whom had given rise to the second Article of Charge against the petitioner. No specific facts qua bias were pleaded and the request was declined, which issue was never further agitated till the matter reached the stage of Tribunal and, thus, in our view, the Tribunal rightly rejected the plea of bias. The Tribunal has also found that there is no rule or regulations shown by the petitioner whereby the advice of the Union Public Service Commission had to be first given to the petitioner. On the conspectus of the material, as a check and balance, advice of Union Public Service Commission is taken. The same was obtained and, thereafter, the final order was passed and, thus, the respondents cannot be faulted on the same. The last aspect arises out of Rule 14(18) of the Rules, Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 6 which reads as under:- “(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the “(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the “(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the “(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, Government servant has not examined himself, Government servant has not examined himself, Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances generally question him on the circumstances generally question him on the circumstances generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the appearing against him in the evidence for the appearing against him in the evidence for the appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to purpose of enabling the Government servant to purpose of enabling the Government servant to purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.” against him.” against him.” against him.” It is not disputed that the petitioner in the present case had examined himself and gave a lengthy statement. The aforesaid sub-rule shows that if the Government servant does not examine himself, it is mandatory to question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for purposes of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstance in evidence against him. Such putting of material is, however, discretionary if the Government servant has examined himself. Since the petitioner had given a lengthy statement in his examination, the Inquiry Officer did not feel the necessity of further putting any incriminating evidence to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us copy of agreement dated 11.3.1999, which was the defaced document, though the same had not been produced before the Tribunal. A perusal of the same shows that it is not a case of any marking of the document by the assessee but a black ink defacement of all the amounts mentioned in figures or words. The consideration which had come on record is stated to be ` 48 lacs for the transaction in question while even post Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 6851-CAT of 2008 7 defacement it is obvious that the figure is of a single numeral followed by at least seven digits and, thus, the amount would certainly run into crores. It is not an innocuous defacement or marking as the case was sought to be pleaded before the Tribunal. The aforesaid being the only grounds urged before us, we find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE July 03, 2014 July 03, 2014 July 03, 2014 July 03, 2014 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ( AJAY TEWARI ) ( AJAY TEWARI ) ( AJAY TEWARI ) Kang Kang Kang Kang JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE "