SHREEKANT BARNWAL V. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CCA)

WP(C)/11670/2020

AI Insights

The case involves a Writ Petition filed by an Inspector of Income Tax challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the reduction of his overall grading from 5.57 to 3.01 by the Reviewing Officer. The petitioner argued that the grading was unfairly reduced without basis, while the respondents provided evidence of the petitioner's misconduct during duty assignments, which justified the lower grading. The Tribunal and the High Court both found the reduction justified based on the petitioner's conduct and the reasons recorded by the Reviewing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748126 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K PARHI
• Assessee Lawyers: S K OJHA
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Grading; Income Tax; Writ petition; Overall Grading; Reporting Officer; Reviewing Officer; APAR; Bhubaneswar; Cuttack

Judgement Text

" 02. 24.11.2020 BP This matter is taken up through video conferencing. 02. Heard Mr.S.K.Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.K.Parhi, learned Asst. Solicitor General. 03. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/610 of 2015. 04. It is contended by the petitioner that he is working as Inspector of Income Tax. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), being the Reporting Officer in respect of the petitioner assessed overall Grading as 5.57 for the period from 01.08.2013 to 31.03.2015. The Joint Director of Income Tax/Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) being the Reviewing Officer reduced the Overall Grading to 3.01. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation before the Principal Director of Income Tax, Bhubanewar on 16.12.2014, which was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2015 maintaining Overall Grading 5.57 as given by the Reporting Officer. Challenging the said order the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that both the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer have written his APAR unfairly. The Reviewing Authority has not acted fairly since he reduced the Overall Grading from 5.57 to 3.01 without any basis and or evidence on record. The Principal Director of Income Tax passed the order dated 15.05.2015 without application of mind. W.P.(C) NO.11670 OF 2020 2 05. The opposite parties filed their counter before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the applicant along with other Inspector had been entrusted with the duties of picking up the Police Personnel from reserve line on the day of search and distribute such Police Personnel to different search teams. The DDIT (Inv), Rourkela had been categorically instructed to do such work with utmost care to avoid any chance of leakage of information. However, it came to the notice of the Addl. DIT (Inv) that three nos. of mid-seized vehicles hired for movement of Police personnel, had been parked in front of residential quarters of the applicant early in the morning of the day of search till the applicant got ready and left for reserve line. Accordingly, the matter was brought to the notice of DIT (Inv), Bhubaneswar who instructed the Addl. DIT (Inv), Sambalpur to call for an explanation from the Inspector, who had committed such irregularities. It was noticed that the applicant was in a habit of leaving the search spot before the search and seizure action was actually concluded. Considering all these facts, since the grading given by the Reporting Officer was not commensurate with the performance and attitude of the applicant, the Reviewing Officer reduced the Overall Grading after recording reasons. 06. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the respective plea of the parties recorded a finding that the Reviewing Authority after recording his reasoning disagreed with the Overall Grading as given by the Reporting Officer, reduced the same with justifiable reason. The withdrawal of the applicant from Investigation Wing on the basis of the report of DDIT (Inv) speaks volume for his 3 devotion to duty. The Principal Director of Income Tax (inv.) has duly considered the representation of the applicant but did not interfere with the rating given by the Reviewing Officer. There being no deviation of any rules by the opposite parties and the decision taken by the Reviewing Officer as well as the Principal Director of Income Tax being based on record, the Tribunal did not interfere with the action taken by the opposite parties. The said order is challenged in the present Writ Petition. 07. After going through the impugned order, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the materials available on record and the fact that the Reviewing Officer has assigned reason for reducing the grade of the applicant. Since the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of the record, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print thereof at par with the certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020. \u0011\u0011\u0011.\u0011\u0011\u0011\u0011.. S.Panda, J. .\u0011\u0011.\u0011.\u0011\u0011\u0011\u0011 S.K.Panigrahi, J. 4 "