- (1.) This is a plaintiff's: second appeal in a suit for declaration that the order dated 11th May, 1971, dismissing him from the service and. earlier order dated 2nd June, 1969, suspending him from service, and the departmental proceedings taken against him, were illegal, ultra vires, ineffective, unconstitutional, inequitable, void and inoperative, and not binding upon his rights to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Income Tax Department or right to recovery of his emoluments, etc. The following are the facts: The plaintiff was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the Income-tax Department of the Government of India on the 6th May, 1964. He was suspended from service on 2nd June, 1969, on the charge of having removed the copies of balance-sheet and account, of Messrs.Gangu Ram Grand Sons, Calcutta, from the file of Messrs. Chaurasia Stores, Varanasi. Memorandum of charge was served on the plaintiff on 5th September, 1969. Inspection of certain documents was asked for, which was allowed, and the plaintiff inspected the record on 23rd September, 1969, but it is alleged by him that all the records sought to be inspected were not made available to him. The plaintiff's request made on 25th September, 1969, for copies of documents was turned down. He filed his written statement on 27th September, 1969, and Sri P. K. Saran, Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence) way appointed as the Enquiry Officer. It is then alleged that the entire charge was based on information received by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, from some informer whose identity was not disclosed; that the Inquiry Officer did not conduct the inquiry in an impartial manner and violated the principles of natural justice. On the Inquiry Officer's report, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi, passed an order dated 11th May, 1971, removing the plaintiff from service, without affording him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. It was contended that the order is illegal, ultra vires, etc., because the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, acted illegally in "blindly following" and accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer; that the Inquiry Officer's report is based on imagination and surmises; that the clerk, Sri Ram Bharti, dealing with collection in the office of the Income Tax Officer, J-Ward, was mainly responsible for removal of the documents, in case it was proved that the documents were kept in the file of Messrs. Chaurasia Stores, Varanasi; and apart from ignoring the evidence of the Income Tax Officers, Sri Ram and Sri C. H. Singh, a letter dated 31st May, 1969, mentioned in the Inquiry report, was never shown to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the punishment was too severe and was passed in contravention of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, and other mandatory provisions of law.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant Government of India, on the pleas that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had received a verbal complaint to the effect that the plaintiff had removed certain documents from the case file of Messrs. Chaurasia Stores, Varanasi, on receipt of illegal gratification, whereupon the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner made a preliminary inquiry by calling for the concerned files on 13th May, 1969, through Sri C. H. Singh, the then Income Tax Officer (Administration), who demanded the files from the plaintiff. But the files were not traceable and it was only when a warning was issued to the plaintiff that the concerned files of Messrs. Chaurasia Stores, Varanasi, were found mixed up with the assessment files of other individuals, although the files of the partners of the firm were available at their proper place. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax found the papers in question missing from the files of Messrs. Chaurasia Stores. He, thereupon, called for report from the Income Tax Officer, J-Ward, and on receipt of his report and on a eonsideration of the material on record, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, passed the impugned suspension order on 2nd June, 1969. The order was served on the plaintiff on the 3rd June, 1969, and a charge-sheet dated 5th September, 1969, was thereafter served on the plaintiff on 9th September, 1969. On receiving the charge-sheet the plaintiff asked for inspection of five items of record. He was allowed to inspect two of them and inspection of remaining three was refused on the ground that the description of papers, sought to be inspected by the plaintiff, was vague, and indefinite. It was pleaded that inspection of these three items was rightly refused. The plaintiff was given opportunity to file his written statement in defence and he filed the same on 27th September, 1969. The plaintiff's request for copies of documents was rightly refused. The Inspecting Assistant Commisssioner. of Income Tax, thereafter appointed, by his order dated 29th September, 1969, Sri P. K. Saran, the then Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), Lucknow, as the Inquiry Officer for inquiry into the charges against the plaintiff of which the plaintiff was informed on the 30th September, 1969. The defendant, further, pleaded that the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was proper and according to the rules and the plaintiff was given all the opportunities and facilities for defending the same. The inquiry was conducted strictly according to law and principles of natural justice were not violated. On the transfer of Sri P. K. Saran before completing the inquiry, Sri A. N. Sinha, the then Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Varanasi, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. He also conducted the inquiry in accordance with law and afforded all facilities and opportunities to the plaintiff for putting forth his defence. Sri; A. N. Sinha, submitted report dated 27th February, 1971, which is based on a full consideration of the entire evidence and all the aspects of the case. He found the plaintiff guilty of the charges against him. A copy of the report was given to the plaintiff on 25th March, 1971, along with show cause notice dated 24th March, 1971, in the prescribed form. The plaintiff submitted his explanation on 8th April, 1971. The explanation was duly and properly considered by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, who agreed with the Inquiry Officer's report and found the plaintiff guilty of the charges against him and considering the grounds of misconduct, he ordered the plaintiff's dismissal, by order dated 11th May, 1971, which was served on the plaintiff in the afternoon of the 12th May, 1971. The plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, by a petition dated 14th June, 1971. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impugned order of dismissal. The plaintiff, thereupon, appealed to the Central Board of Direct Taxes by a petition dated 1st January, 1972. The Board found the appeal to be incompetent and refused to entertain the same. The Board's order was communicated to the plaintiff on 13th October, 1972. The contentions raised by the plaintiff against the validity of the impugned order were specifically denied para-wise in the written statement and it was pleaded that the civil court did not have any appellate or other such jurisdiction over the orders of the disciplinary authority under the said rules, and the impugned orders were neither void nor inoperative, nor ineffective, nor unconstitutional. Other pleas about the validity of the notice and court fees etc. were also raised.
(3.) The trial court framed the following five issues: 1. Whether the order dated 11-5-1971 passed by the defendant No. 4 is illegal and ultra vires on the ground set forth in para 15 of the plaint 2. Whether the notice u/s 80 C. P. C. is illegal If so, its effect 3. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient . 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable and the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit . 5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ;