Case: Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs. The Union of India

the conclusion that a majority of the charges had been established. It was not necessary for the Commissioner to make a precise summary of the evidence against the appellant and furnish him the reasons or grounds for arriving at the provisional conclusion when he issued the show-cause notice on 5-5-1955.21. Complaint was made before us that the appellant was not informed as to what was the punishment recommended by the Enquiry Officer. This, however, assumes that the Enquiry Officer had made recommendation with regard to the punishment. There is no evidence that he did. In fact a copy of the Enquiry Officers report had been sent to the appellant and it does not disclose that there was any such recommendation with regard to punishment. It is argued that since the Enquiry Officer had been asked to submit a report containing his findings are recommendations, there must have been some recommendation as to punishment. The question was not raised in the pleadings and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India informs us that he has in his possession the original report of the Enquiry Officer which he was willing to show to the court and that report did not contain any commendation as regards punishment. Merely because the Enquiry Officer was asked to send his report containing his findings and recommendations it does not follow that there must have been a recommendation with regard to punishment. In the absence of any finding on the point, we do not think that we can accede to this contention.22. Next it was contended that the Commissioner had unjustifiably made a finding which was contrary to the one made by the Enquiry Officer in the case of the assessment of the firm of Girdhari Lal Manoharlal, Ferozabad. The charge in this connection was that the appellant had failed to take action against the assessee for escaped income for earlier years. The Enquiry Officer thought that there were no grounds to hold that the appellant had erred in not taking action.The Commissioner came to a contrary conclusion. Now, there is no doubt at all that the Commissioner is not bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer. See: Union of India v. H. C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 = (AIR 1964 SC 364 ). He was the punishing authority. He had to consider the evidence before him and though he had to consider the Enquiry Officers report he was not bound by the latters findings. What is further contended, however is that in the notice to show cause dated 5-5-1955 the Commissioner had stated that he had concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer which would mean that he had also concurred with the above finding of the Enquiry Officer in this respect. Reading the show-cause notice one feels no doubt that what the Commissioner meant to say in the notice was that he had provisionally concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If it was not so, there would have been really no point in asking the appellant to show cause. Indeed if by reason of such concurrence the appellant had omitted to give his explanation on the point, there might have been some prejudice. It is not shown that there had been any prejudice in fact. But assuming that there was this slight deviation, it amounts to nothing significant, because on the main two points considered in connection with the assessment of Girdharlal, namely. (1) that the appellant had not imposed a penalty although the returns for two years had not been filed within the time allowed and (2) that the appellants had failed to add as profits cash deposits amounting to about Rs. 2/- lakhs, both the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Enquiry Officer were at one.23. Finally, it was contended that the enquiry was oppressive because instead of a regular enquiry on charges once framed, charge-sheets were filed as the enquiry went along. The complaint is that there were three charge-sheets filed against the appellant on three different dates, two in 1952 and one in 1953. In fact the third charge-sheet was issued when the Enquiry Officer had already undertaken the enquiry under the first two charge sheets. It was contended that by adding charges as the enquiry proceeded, the enquiry was rendered oppressive, and this amounted to deprivation of reasonable opportunity. We do not find any substance in this contention also. The first charge-sheet was issued to the appellant, on 8-3-1952 and the second about 5 weeks later i.e. in April, 1952. The appellant filed his explanations to each charge-sheet and only on finding them to be unsatisfactory, the Commissioner appointed the Enquiry Officer in 1953 - actually on 6-7-1953. The Enquiry Officer entered on the enquiry on 23-7-1953. The third charge-sheet, it is true, was issued by the Commissioner when the Enquiry Officer was proceeding with the enquiry in respect of the first two charge-sheets. But the third charge-sheet was merely an aggravated form of the first charge-sheet. Under-assessments referred to in the first charge-sheet were now linked with the appellants dishonest motive of accepting illegal gratification. In that connection, reference was also made in the third charge-sheet to the appellant acquiring assets in excess of his legitimate pecuniary resources. Indeed the latter charge failed. But under -assessment with a dishonest motive has been substantially held proved in the case of a large number of assessments. The charge about dishonesty and acceptance of illegal gratification was mainly inferential on the material which was placed before the appellant from the very beginning. After the third charge-sheet was given, the appellant was not hustled through the enquiry. He was given enough opportunity to make whatever representations he wanted to make against the evidence disclosed by the circumstances of the case. All that we can say is that by reason of the third charge-sheet the enquiry was prolonged for sometime, but the essential facts being the same, there was no basis for complaint that the enquiry had become oppressive.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]Mr. Hardys case seems is that in this case there was really no formal enquiry on regular charges and hence a major punishment was out of the question. Hence, the appellant not having known at the commencement of the enquiry that a major punishment would be inflicted on him had been prejudiced in his defence and, therefore, on that ground the appellant was entitled to claim that the final order of dismissal passed against him was bad and was not in accordance with law. We do not think there is any substance in this submission. The appellant was under no misapprehension as to the nature of the enquiry started against him. It is true that the firstwas described as a Memo but the Memo showed that it was a Memo issued in connection with disciplinary action against him. Four charges were formally framed and the Annexure gave detailed particulars in support of the charges. In para 2 of this Memo the appellant was required to show cause in writing as to why he should not be suitably dealt with. Para 3 asked him to say whether he would like to produce any evidence in support or would like to be personally heard. There is hardly any doubt about the nature of the disciplinary action intended to be taken. There is no magic in the wordThe Memo clearly showed what were the heads under which disciplinary action was contemplated. That it was awas made clear soon enough (before the Enquiry Officer was appointed) because the secondwhich was issued on April 17, 1952 described itself as a supplementaryand stated that the charges made in this supplementarywere in addition or supplemental to the charges framed against the appellant under the Memo datedthat is to say, the firsteet which was served on him on 27th October, 1953 described itself formally as aand also the previous two communications asThe several charges were clearly set out in all of them and the necessary particulars on which the charges were based were set out in great detail in the Annexures attached to them. We are, therefore not at all impressed by the argument that there was in reality nowhich contemplated a formal enquiry. Nor are we impressed by the second part of the argument viz. that the appellant was prejudiced as the punishment contemplated was not referred to. We must point out here that the Enquiry Officer who was to make the enquiry was not the authority who could inflict the punishment. He had only to make his report, after enquiry,to the Commissioner ofwho alone was the punishing authority. That authority, it is not disputed, issued a show cause notice why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed upon the appellant and the appellant did show cause. The appellant knew from the beginning that disciplinary action was contemplated against him and the very fact that formal charges were drawn up against him show that the major punishments were intended. Indeed it will be absurd to think that when a person in the position of anOfficer is charged for causing loss of revenue bythe assessees with a dishonest motive. he could be under any misapprehension as to the nature of punishment likely to be inflicted. The enquiry against him went on till 1954. He had been suspended in January, 1953 and the very nature of the enquiry could not have kept him under any belief that he was likely to be lightly dealt with if foundthat Mr. Hardy was able to point out to us was that the reports received by the Commissioner offrom his departmental subordinates before thewas served on the appellant had not been made available to the appellant. It appears that on complaints being received about his work the Commissioner ofhad asked the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Shri R. N. Srivastava to make a report. He made a report. It is obvious that the appellant was not entitled to a copy of the report made by Mr. Srivastava or any other officer unless the enquiry officer relied on these reports. It is very necessary for an authority which orders an enquiry to be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for holding a disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, before he makes up his mind he will either himself investigate or direct his subordinates to investigate in the matter and it is only after he receives the result of these investigations that he can decide as to whether disciplinary action is called for or not. Therefore, these documents of the nature ofcommunications between officers preliminary to the holding of enquiry have really no importance unless the Enquiry Officer wants to rely on them for his conclusions. In that case it would only be right that copies of the same should be given to the delinquent. It is not the case here that either the Enquiry Officer or the Commissioner ofrelied on the report of Shri. R. N. Srivastava or any other officer for his finding against the appellant. Therefore, there is no substance in thisHigh Court has rejected this submission and we think for good reasons.The appellant was not entitled under the Rules to the assistance of an advocate during the course of the enquiry. The learned Judges were right in pointing out that all that the appellant had to do in the course of the enquiry was to defend the correctness of his assessment orders. Clear indications had been given in the charges with regard to the unusual conduct he displayed in disposing of the assessment cases and the various flaws and defaults which were apparent on the face of the assessment records themselves. The appellant was the best person to give proper explanations. The circumstances in the evidence against him were clearly put to him and he had to give his explanation. An advocate could have hardly helped him in this. It was not a case where oral evidence was recorded with reference to accounts and the petitioner required the services of a trained lawyer for crossexamining the witnesses. There was no legal complexity in the case. We do not, therefore, accede to the contention that the absence of a lawyer deprived the appellant of a reasonable opportunity to defendhe means is that the enquiry did not take the shape of a trial as in a court of law where oral evidence is led and witnesses are offered forThe enquiry consisted chiefly of eliciting replies to questions put by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the assessment records and this, according to Mr. Hardy, did not amount to a proper enquiry. There is, however, no set form for disciplinary enquiries. It is true that in some cases oral evidence may have to be led when witnesses are called to give evidence and are offered forBut in other cases that may not be the appropriate mode of enquiry. For example, in the present case, the appellant was charged on the basis of his assessment orders. The various flaws in the assessment were pointed out to him. His answers were recorded. Opportunities were given to him to explain the circumstances disclosed by the evidence culled from the assessment orders themselves. He gave the explanations. We do not see how it could be said that this is not personal hearing. In fact it is very much so. At every step he was questioned with regard to the record he himself had made and an opportunity granted to explain the circumstances against him. The necessary requirement of natural justice is a reasonable opportunity to defend. That was given in the present case and, therefore, there can be really no complaint on the score that there was no personal hearing. It appears that only one witness named Rajvir Singh had been examined but the Enquiry Officer himself rejected his evidence and no more was said about him thereafter.19. It does appear in this case that while the enquiry was pending the Enquiry Officer made some enquiries with regard to the appellants immovable properties at Lucknow. In these enquiries, the appellant himself was not associated. The High Court took exception to the Enquiry Officers finding based on these private enquiries and, in our opinion rightly. It held that finding on charge No. 2 in the thirdwas vitiated. Except for this lapse on the part of the Enquiry Officer, there does not appear to be any serious ground for complaint that the appellant was convicted on evidence which was not disclosed todo not find any substance in this argument also. It must be recalled that after the Enquiry Officers report was received by the Commissioner, he sent a copy of the same to the appellant who was requested to make his comments thereon. In fact this was not necessary, and it was open to the Commissioner to issue a notice to show cause against the punishment if he was provisionally satisfied on the report. The appellant made his comments on the report of the Enquiry Officer and after taking them into consideration the commissioners informed the appellant by his order datedthat he had provisionally come to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were correct and, therefore, he was calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant gave his explanation. The Commissioner considered the evidence against the appellant and his explanation some of which he accepted and some others he did not, and finally came to the conclusion that a majority of the charges had been established. It was not necessary for the Commissioner to make a precise summary of the evidence against the appellant and furnish him the reasons or grounds for arriving at the provisional conclusion when he issued the21. Complaint was made before us that the appellant was not informed as to what was the punishment recommended by the Enquiry Officer. This, however, assumes that the Enquiry Officer had made recommendation with regard to the punishment. There is no evidence that he did. In fact a copy of the Enquiry Officers report had been sent to the appellant and it does not disclose that there was any such recommendation with regard to punishment. It is argued that since the Enquiry Officer had been asked to submit a report containing his findings are recommendations, there must have been some recommendation as to punishment. The question was not raised in the pleadings and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India informs us that he has in his possession the original report of the Enquiry Officer which he was willing to show to the court and that report did not contain any commendation as regards punishment. Merely because the Enquiry Officer was asked to send his report containing his findings and recommendations it does not follow that there must have been a recommendation with regard to punishment. In the absence of any finding on the point, we do not think that we can accede to thisthere is no doubt at all that the Commissioner is not bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer. See: Union of India v. H. C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718   = (AIR 1964 SC 364  ). He was the punishing authority. He had to consider the evidence before him and though he had to consider the Enquiry Officers report he was not bound by the latters findings. What is further contended, however is that in the notice to show cause datedthe Commissioner had stated that he had concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer which would mean that he had also concurred with the above finding of the Enquiry Officer in this respect. Reading thenotice one feels no doubt that what the Commissioner meant to say in the notice was that he had provisionally concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If it was not so, there would have been really no point in asking the appellant to show cause. Indeed if by reason of such concurrence the appellant had omitted to give his explanation on the point, there might have been some prejudice. It is not shown that there had been any prejudice in fact. But assuming that there was this slight deviation, it amounts to nothing significant, because on the main two points considered in connection with the assessment of Girdharlal, namely. (1) that the appellant had not imposed a penalty although the returns for two years had not been filed within the time allowed and (2) that the appellants had failed to add as profits cash deposits amounting to about Rs. 2/lakhs, both the Commissioner ofand the Enquiry Officer were atcomplaint is that there were threefiled against the appellant on three different dates, two in 1952 and one in 1953. In fact the thirdwas issued when the Enquiry Officer had already undertaken the enquiry under the first two charge sheets. It was contended that by adding charges as the enquiry proceeded, the enquiry was rendered oppressive, and this amounted to deprivation of reasonable opportunity. We do not find any substance in this contention also. The firstwas issued to the appellant, onand the second about 5 weeks later i.e. in April, 1952. The appellant filed his explanations to eachand only on finding them to be unsatisfactory, the Commissioner appointed the Enquiry Officer in 19533. The Enquiry Officer entered on the enquiry onet, it is true, was issued by the Commissioner when the Enquiry Officer was proceeding with the enquiry in respect of the first twoBut the thirdwas merely an aggravated form of the firsts referred to in the firstwere now linked with the appellants dishonest motive of accepting illegal gratification. In that connection, reference was also made in the thirdto the appellant acquiring assets in excess of his legitimate pecuniary resources. Indeed the latter charge failed. But underassessment with a dishonest motive has been substantially held proved in the case of a large number of assessments. The charge about dishonesty and acceptance of illegal gratification was mainly inferential on the material which was placed before the appellant from the very beginning. After the thirdwas given, the appellant was not hustled through the enquiry. He was given enough opportunity to make whatever representations he wanted to make against the evidence disclosed by the circumstances of the case. All that we can say is that by reason of the thirdthe enquiry was prolonged for sometime, but the essential facts being the same, there was no basis for complaint that the enquiry had become oppressive.