Case: M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India

should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". 14. Here, out of the three instances on which the Screening Committee relied to dub the officer as a case of "doubtful integrity" the first is his action against M/s Orkay Silk Mills. The fact is that it was the appellant who headed the operation. A task which unearthed such a huge sum of concealed excise duty would normally evoke appreciation for his work. But what was noted against him in that affair is that he wilfully created lacunae in the confiscation proceedings for providing an escape route to the defaulter. One is that the confiscation order contains nearly 100 pages and the period was too short for preparing such an order. What is the inference to be drawn ? Normally it is an achievement that an order of 100 pages was made during such a short period. So what is then to be thought of against it ? Is it that he would have taken too much pain to finish his work or is it that he would have caused it to be written by somebody else ? Is there not a clear possibility that the officer hearing the adjudication case for several days would have prepared its prefatory portion as well as statement of summary of evidence during the days when arguments were proceeding and before conclusion of the hearing, leaving out the crucial discussion to be dictated after conclusion of the hearing ? That is not an objectionable course. If so, the achievement in preparing an order of confiscation within such a short span should not have been frowned at, instead there is scope to pay admiration for its promptitude.15. Another lacuna is that he imposed a huge penalty and fine without issuing a show cause notice. To say that he did it for helping the defaulter is too far-fetched. The appellate authority which may be persuaded to set aside such an order on that ground could as well direct the authority to pass a fresh order after issuing the show cause notice. So it is unreasonable to conclude that the imposition of penalty was made calculatedly to have it upset by the superior authority. 16. We feel that the two lacunae ferreted out from the proceeding relating to M/s Orkay Silk Mills are grossly insufficient to reach a conclusion that the delinquent officer was trying to help the defaulting manufacturer. 17. In the second instance concerning file of M/s Indian Tobacco Company the inference made against the defaulter is too tenuous. The minimum thing which should have been done was to ascertain from Shri Bhattacharjee the Deputy Director, the circumstances under which instructions were issued by him to keep the investigation in abeyance. Attributing a sinister motive to the appellant for what Shri Bhattacharjee had done was seemingly unfair, without adopting such a minimum precaution.18. The third is the case relating to import of spare parts which the Jain Brothers assembled for making Honda cars. In that case the ostensible role of the appellant was to detect the offence through investigation and then to follow it up seriously. When the defaulters were granted bail the appellant moved for cancellation of the bail it is prima facie a point in favour of the appellants tenacity to pursue the steps adopted. Thus far the role played by the appellant was that of a dutiful and efficient officer of the department. But the reason for the Screening Committee to doubt the integrity of the appellant in the aforesaid case is that the Jain Brothers have alleged that one Mr. Kapoor told them that appellant was to be paid Rs. 10 lakhs to save them from the proceedings.19. We perused the statement of Jains. They never said that appellant made the above demand to them at any time. The only material before the Screening Committee was that the two accused had stated that Kapoor gave them such an impression. It must be noted that nobody had checked up the truth of it with the person to whom it was attributed. The most unfortunate feature is that nobody has checked it up even with Mr. Kapoor who is alleged to have told like that to the Jain Brothers. If integrity of senior officers, who established unblemished reputation and earned encomiums from all concerned till then, is proclaimed as doubtful merely on the strength of statements of persons prosecuted by such officers, what is the safety of such officers more so when they have to embark on hazardous operations risking their lives against big business houses ?20. Shri N.N Goswami, Senior Advocate arguing for Union of India submitted to us that members of the Screening Committee are very reputed persons and hence their conclusion must be given full weight. It is not a question of doubting calibre the members of the Screening Committee. While declining to agree with their conclusion no particle of mud is slung on any member of the Screening Committee. Even if such a conclusion was made by a judicial personage the higher court which overrules it does not cast any stigma on the judicial officer concerned.21. We have no doubt that there is utter dearth of evidence for the Screening Committee to conclude that appellant had doubtful integrity. Such a conclusion does not stand judicial scrutiny even within the limited permissible scope.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e. want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente(no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity".Here, out of the three instances on which the Screening Committee relied to dub the officer as a case of "doubtful integrity" the first is his action against M/s Orkay Silk Mills. The fact is that it was the appellant who headed the operation. A task which unearthed such a huge sum of concealed excise duty would normally evoke appreciation for his work. But what was noted against him in that affair is that he wilfully created lacunae in the confiscation proceedings for providing an escape route to the defaulter. One is that the confiscation order contains nearly 100 pages and the period was too short for preparing such an order. What is the inference to be drawn ? Normally it is an achievement that an order of 100 pages was made during such a short period. So what is then to be thought of against it ? Is it that he would have taken too much pain to finish his work or is it that he would have caused it to be written by somebody else ? Is there not a clear possibility that the officer hearing the adjudication case for several days would have prepared its prefatory portion as well as statement of summary of evidence during the days when arguments were proceeding and before conclusion of the hearing, leaving out the crucial discussion to be dictated after conclusion of the hearing ? That is not an objectionable course. If so, the achievement in preparing an order of confiscation within such a short span should not have been frowned at, instead there is scope to pay admiration for its promptitude.15. Another lacuna is that he imposed a huge penalty and fine without issuing a show cause notice. To say that he did it for helping the defaulter is too far-fetched. The appellate authority which may be persuaded to set aside such an order on that ground could as well direct the authority to pass a fresh order after issuing the show cause notice. So it is unreasonable to conclude that the imposition of penalty was made calculatedly to have it upset by the superior authority.In the second instance concerning file of M/s Indian Tobacco Company the inference made against the defaulter is too tenuous. The minimum thing which should have been done was to ascertain from Shri Bhattacharjee the Deputy Director, the circumstances under which instructions were issued by him to keep the investigation in abeyance. Attributing a sinister motive to the appellant for what Shri Bhattacharjee had done was seemingly unfair, without adopting such a minimum precaution.18. The third is the case relating to import of spare parts which the Jain Brothers assembled for making Honda cars. In that case the ostensible role of the appellant was to detect the offence through investigation and then to follow it up seriously. When the defaulters were granted bail the appellant moved for cancellation of the bail it is prima facie a point in favour of the appellants tenacity to pursue the steps adopted. Thus far the role played by the appellant was that of a dutiful and efficient officer of the department. But the reason for the Screening Committee to doubt the integrity of the appellant in the aforesaid case is that the Jain Brothers have alleged that one Mr. Kapoor told them that appellant was to be paid Rs. 10 lakhs to save them from the proceedings.19. We perused the statement of Jains. They never said that appellant made the above demand to them at any time. The only material before the Screening Committee was that the two accused had stated that Kapoor gave them such an impression. It must be noted that nobody had checked up the truth of it with the person to whom it was attributed. The most unfortunate feature is that nobody has checked it up even with Mr. Kapoor who is alleged to have told like that to the Jain Brothers. If integrity of senior officers, who established unblemished reputation and earned encomiums from all concerned till then, is proclaimed as doubtful merely on the strength of statements of persons prosecuted by such officers, what is the safety of such officers more so when they have to embark on hazardous operations risking their lives against big business houses ?20. Shri N.N Goswami, Senior Advocate arguing for Union of India submitted to us that members of the Screening Committee are very reputed persons and hence their conclusion must be given full weight. It is not a question of doubting calibre the members of the Screening Committee. While declining to agree with their conclusion no particle of mud is slung on any member of the Screening Committee. Even if such a conclusion was made by a judicial personage the higher court which overrules it does not cast any stigma on the judicial officer concerned.21. We have no doubt that there is utter dearth of evidence for the Screening Committee to conclude that appellant had doubtful integrity. Such a conclusion does not stand judicial scrutiny even within the limited permissible scope.