Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (1) TMI 1600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5, no criminal or disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant. He was found fit by the DPC and recommended for promotion. ACC, however, did not approve his promotion and desired that all complaints be decided. As a matter of fact, no complaint was pending against the applicant. The only criminal case registered against him had been closed by the investigating agency (CBI) itself and the closure report filed u/s 173 CrPC was accepted by the Special Judge, CBI. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the provisions contained in DOP&T office memorandum No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992, which came to be issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India etc. v K. V. Jankiraman [199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... O R D E R Justice Permod Kohli, Chairman : The applicant joined service as Assistant Commissioner of income Tax on 05.09.1993 on qualifying the examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission. He earned promotions from time to time up to the rank of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. On 25.11.2010 RC No.0102010A0036 was registered against the applicant under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and section 109 IPC by CBI, ACB, Kolkata. However, on conclusion of the investigation, CBI filed a final closure report dated 29.12.2003 under section 173 CrPC before the Court of Special Judge, Kolkata 3rd Special Court, seeking closure of the investigation on the ground that sam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l placed before the DPC and he was found fit and placed at serial number 105 of the recommendations made by the DPC for his promotion. The promotion order dated 16.09.2015 promoting the recommendees to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax did not contain the name of the applicant, whereas the aforesaid Stapal Gulati and B. Venkataswara Rao who were junior to the applicant were promoted to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax. The applicant has accordingly filed this OA seeking following relief: (i) declare the action of respondent no.1 2 in not promoting the applicant to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of promotion order dated 16.09.2015 in spite of recommendations made by UPSC (respondent no.3) as illegal, arbitrary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Special Judge, CBI. 6. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the provisions contained in DOP T office memorandum No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992, which came to be issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India etc. v K. V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109]. Para 2 of the aforesaid office memorandum reads as under: 2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee. i) Government servants under suspension; ii) Government servants in respect of whom a char .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivastava v Union of India others, and another judgment of a coordinate Bench dated 08.09.2016 passed in OA No.4664/2015 Brijpal v Delhi Development Authority others [reported as 2017 (1) SLR 221 (CAT)]. In Brijpal s case when the DPC was held on 28.01.2013, the applicant was under suspension on account of a charge-sheet dated 19.10.2010 being inquired into in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, and his case was put into sealed cover. His suspension was revoked on 13.03.2013, and he was also subsequently exonerated in the charge-sheet on 05.08.2013. Respondents, however, refused to open the sealed cover on account of a second charge-sheet which was issued to the applicant only on 22.04.2013, i.e., after the DPC had been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates