Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The short point which arises for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet constitute any misconduct and as to whether the conduct of the petitioner in discharging of his duties as an Income Tax Officer warrants disciplinary action.
(2.) The said issue needs to be considered in the backdrop of the facts that a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 26th March, 1990. The petitioner prayed for inspection of certain relevant documents and as no inspection was granted, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal through an original application being OA 1385 of 1993. Pursuant to the order passed in the said application on 24th December, 1993 some documents were supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a further application before the learned Tribunal being OA 21 of 1997, inter alia, praying for cancellation of the charge sheet. However, the inquiry report was ultimately filed on 29th January, 1999. The petitioner replied to the inquiry report and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed a final order on 23rd March, 2001 imposing a punishment of reduction to a lower stage with effect from 26th March, 1990. Aggrieved by the said final order the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. During pendency of the said statutory appeal the petitioner received a letter dated 22nd/23rd August, 2001 intimating that upon revision the President has proposed to revise the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority so as to make it effective prospectively, i.e., from the date of order of imposing penalty. However, the said appeal and the revision case have not been disposed of till date. The order dated 23rd March, 2001 passed by the disciplinary authority was challenged through an original application being OA 1188 of 2001. Both the original applications being OA 21 of 1997 and OA 1188 of 2001 were heard analogously and an order was passed on 10th August, 2007 by which the respondent authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's promotion in accordance with rules and regulations and the other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner were rejected. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court and upon contested hearing the WPCT No.1 of 2008 was disposed of by a judgment dated 15th January, 2009 remanding the matter for consideration of the issue as to whether the allegations in the charge sheet issued against the petitioner constitute any misconduct. Pursuant to the said order the original applications were heard and an order was passed on 7th April, 2010 observing, inter alia, that the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet do not cast any stigma on his decisions as a quasi judicial authority. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7th April, 2010 the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether the allegations in the charge sheet constitute any misconduct has not been appropriately decided by the learned Tribunal taking into consideration all the materials on record and particularly the fact that charges mentioned in Articles I, II and III were not totally proved against the petitioner. It could not be established in the proceedings that the petitioner's acts or omissions cast a reflection upon his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty as a member of the service. The alleged charges levelled against the petitioner do not disclose any culpability nor is there any allegation of taking any bribe or trying to favour any party. The petitioner conducted the assessment proceedings in exercise of the powers vested under the statute and while discharging the aforesaid functions, if any erroneous order was passed the authorities concerned should have approached the superior forum instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.;