R P MALHOTRA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 23,1990

R.P.MALHOTRA Appellant
VERSUS
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SUJIT KUMAR ROY VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2004-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
A K PATEL PI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1999-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA NAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1994-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
SAMBHAJI RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE VS. K V BHANUJAN [LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
M G PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-210] [REFERRED TO]
D. G. DESOUZA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1990-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED SALEEM MALIK S/O SHRI UMAR ALI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-187] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGEKUTTY KURIAN VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-25] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- Special leave granted.
(2.)The subject matter of challenge in this Special Leave Petition is the order of 2nd August, 1985 whereby the appellant was ordered to retire compulsorily under the provisions of 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules as in the opinion of the Screening Committee the appellant has lost his effectiveness as well as utility to the Department and in the public interest he is required to be prematurely retired.
(3.)Reliance has been placed by, the Ld. A.S.G. on the A.C.Rs. as well as on the report of the Screening Committee. We have gone through the A.C.Rs. for the period 1980-81 where it has been stated by the Reporting Officer in all the columns "good, nothing adverse to my knowledge". Then it has been recorded that he is a man of above average, he can improve his performance, his overall performance during the last year is categorised as "good" for the year 1981-82. The report is regarding general assessment "good" and a capable Officer for the year 1981-82. It has been remarked by Mr. S. C. Prashar Commr.. of Income-tax "an average officer" in the A.C.R. for the period for 1982-83.There for the period 1983-84 against all the columns the remarks is "good". Regarding integrity it was remarked "nothing came to knowledge from which adverse inference can be drawn. The officer was hold in Salary Circle prior to his assignment. He himself left Column 12 blank "I appreciate that he is honest to admit that he has not done any outstanding work. Quality of assessment is average. Considering his experience and capability recommend his posting for Salary Circle etc." The report for the period 31-3-85 is as follows:
"The I.T.O. has acceded (exceeded) all his targets or met (sic) him. He has good investigating capabilities and did some good 133A cases also during the year."

The Inspecting Assistant Commr. also remarked as follows:

"He is intelligent systematic officer. He ran his station well and smoothly. He knows his job and works sincerely."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.