Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an application by an erstwhile Income-tax Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of suspension dated 2nd September 1965, the memorandum dated 9th September 1965 containing the charge-sheet against the said officer, the orders dated 30th April, 1966, 18th July, 1966, 3rd October, 1966, the enquiry report dated 29th March 1967, the show cause notice dated 29th April 1968 and the order of removal on the said officer dated 10th February 1969. The petitioner was appointed to officiate as an Income-tax Officer, Class II Grade III of the Income-tax Department, Calcutta, with effect from 22nd November 1954. Thereafter from 1956 to 1959 the petitioner served in various capacities in the districts of Bengal as Income-tax Officer as well as in Calcutta. In July 1959 the petitioner was made quasi-permanent and with effect from 8th April 1960 the petitioner was confirmed as the Income-tax Officer. On the 17th August 1960 the petitioner was posted as the Income-tax Officer 'E' Ward, Special Survey Circle IV, Calcutta. The petitioner also served the Special Survey Circle in various capacities as also in other districts of the Income-tax Department in Calcutta. In October 1963 the petitioner was transferred to hold the charge of D and E Wards of District III-A, Calcutta. It will be relevant at this stage to state that with effect from 30th November 1964 the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955 were repealed by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964- The significance of this date would be evident later on. On the 2nd September 1965 the order of respondent No. 1 was passed under Rule 12 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1957 placing the petitioner under suspension. This is one of the orders which is under challenge in this application. On the 9th September 1965 the petitioner was charge-sheeted for violation of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955. It would be relevant at this stage to refer to the said charge-sheet. There were two charges against the petitioner. It was stated firstly, that the petitioner while functioning as Income-tax Officer in the Special Survey Circle IV, Calcutta during the period from 9-8-58 to 10-5-61 contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, inasmuch as, (a) the petitioner made assessments in several cases in a dishonest and mala fide manner causing wrongful loss of revenue to the Government; (b) the petitioner displayed gross negligence and/or inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties; and (c) the petitioner tampered with the official records. As a result of the enquiry by the enquiring officer the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges under several heads mentioned above by the enquiring officer. The disciplinary authority however disagreed with the findings of the enquiring officer in so far as Sub-clause (b) of charge 1 referred to hereinabove, that is to say, that the petitioner displayed gross negligence and/or inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties. The disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the said charge had been established. The second charge against the petitioner was that while functioning as Income-tax Officer in Special Survey Circle IV, Calcutta during the period 9th August 1958 to 10th May 1961 he failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding procedure to be followed in making the assessments and thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955. The enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner in respect of this charge. The disciplinary authority has also agreed with the said finding of the enquiry officer. On the 17th September 1965 the petitioner asked for inspection of certain documents. Thereafter on the 21st of September, 1965 the petitioner was asked to contact the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Head Quarters for inspection of documents. On the 20th November 1965 Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal.) Rules 1965 were promulgated by the President and the said Rules came into force on the 1st December, 1965. By the 1965 Rules the 1957 Rules were repealed. It would be necessary later on to refer to the terms in which the said Rules have been repealed in order to appreciate one of the contentions raised in this application. Between 6th December, 1965 and 14th April 1966 the petitioner asked for inspection of certain documents. The said prayers of the petitioner are contained in two letters dated 6th December 1965 which is Annexure F to the present petition and the letter dated 14th April, 1966 which is also Annexure F to the said petition. On the 30th April 1966, the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I, refused to give the petitioner inspection of certain documents specified in the letters mentioned before on the ground that either these were not relevant or these were not available at that moment with the department. The said order of respondent No. 1 is contained in Annexure G to the present petition. On the 18th July 1966 one Mr. G. B. Seth, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range TV, Calcutta was appointed to present the case before the enquiry officer against the petitioner. On the 18th July 1966 the respondent No. 1 appointed respondent No. 3 under Rule 14 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 as the enquiring authority. Thereafter on the 30th September 1966 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 1 to permit him to engage a lawyer for representing the petitioner's case and the said prayer was refused. It would be relevant again to refer later on to the terms in which the said prayer has been refused to appreciate certain contentions raised in this application. On the 26th October, 1966 the first hearing took place before the enquiry officer and on the 7th February 1967 the second hearing took place. On the 29th April 1968 the petitioner received from respondent No. 1 a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 1. In the said report respondent No. 3 found the petitioner innocent of all the charges, as mentioned hereinbefore. In the said notice, however, it was stated by respondent No. 1 that he agreed with the findings of respondent No, 3 in so far as it related to charges 1 (a) and 1 (c) and charge No. 2. The respondent No. 1, however, intimated to the petitioner he had provisionally come to the conclusion that No. 1 (b) had been proved differing from the finding made by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was given an opportunity of making representation. The petitioner showed cause on the 28th September, 1968. There was a further representation by the petitioner on the 4th January 1969. On the 10th February 1969 the respondent No. 1 passed the order removing the petitioner from service. Thereafter this application was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution and a rule nisi was obtained.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions in this case. The first contention that requires consideration is that the charges are vague, specially the charge in respect of which the petitioner has been found guilty. As mentioned hereinbefore the said charge was that the petitioner had contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955 inasmuch as he had displayed gross negligence and inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties. It was contended that no particulars had been given of what was his duty and what acts he committed which might be termed as negligent. It was also urged that it had not been clearly stated what was the standard of efficiency and duty. I am unable to accept this contention. The said charge-sheet was sent along with the statement of allegations. The statement of allegations have detailed instances of several assessments and the circumstances under which the said assessments had been made. From the, facts enumerated in the said statement of allegations which gave particulars of the dates of assessments, the file numbers, the names of the assessees and the circumstances as appearing from the documents. The said facts were the basis upon which the charge of negligence was based. The question whether the charges were vague or not, cannot be judged in isolation. It was urged that there was no standard of duty or efficiency. I am of opinion that such standard of duty or efficiency must be judged from a common-sense point of view prevalent in a particular office or a particular department. Counsel for the petitioner referred me to several decisions. He first drew my attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Ananthanarayanan v. General Manager, Southern Rly., AIR 1956 Mad 220. There it was observed by the learned Judge that charges must be clear and specific. In so far as that proposition is concerned no exception can be taken to that proposition. In the aforesaid decision the Madras High Court was concerned with the charge made in the context of Rule 3 of Railway Service (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules 1954. The said Rule was differently worded from the present Rule with which I am concerned in this application. Furthermore, in so far as the Madras High Court expressed the view that the said Rule 3 was indefinite even when read in the context of expression 'national security', the same view has not been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ballakotiah v. Union of India, Counsel for the petitioner then referred me to the decision of Sinha J. (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Amulya Ratan v. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer. Eastern Rly., There Sinha J, expressed the opinion that the charges must be specific and must give all particulars. That is a proposition which is well-settled and I respectfully agree with the said observation. But whether charges are specific and give all particulars must be judged in the context of a particular charge and particular set of facts. Reliance was then placed on the decision in the case of Surath Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, There the Supreme Court observed that if a person was not told clearly and definitely what the allegations were on which the charges preferred against him were founded, he could not possibly by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that might be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. The Supreme Court observed that the whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations was to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defence. There, it is to be noted, that the statement of allegations was never sent to the delinquent in, that case. In the instant case, as mentioned herein-before the charges were supported by a statement of allegations where detailed facts have been stated. Therefore, in my opinion, the aforesaid decision cannot help the petitioner. Having considered the propositions of law mentioned herein-before and having considered the charges in this case, as well the fact that in the instant case the charges were supported by statement of allegations wherein detailed facts of several assessments had been given, I am of opinion that the charges in respect of which the petitioner had been found guilty cannot be termed as vague or indefinite.
(3.) The next contention that was urged was that Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955 was vague and as such ultra vires. It was secondly contended that the said rule contained an expression of pious wish and could not be the subject-matter of any charge.;