V.k. Gupta v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ward

HIFZURRAHMANANSARI Digitally signed byHIFZURRAHMANANSARIDate: 2025.09.0816:14:18 +0530 Reserved on- 24.04.2025 Delivered on – 04.09.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP No. 2619 of 1997 V.K. Gupta Aged About 51 years, S/o Late K. M. Gupta, Revered- Divisional Engineer (Civil) K.E./30- New-Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP), posted at HSCL Unit at Panipat (UP) R/o Hose NO. 1132, Urban Sector, Sector No. 13 Karnal. ... Petitioner versus 1.Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Through: Chairman-cum-Managing Director, H.S.C.L. Regd. Address: 1, Shakespeare Sarani, 8th Floor, Calcutta-700071.2.General Manager, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (M.P.). 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Ward No. 2, Raipur Distt. Raipur (M.P.)4.Chairman Board of Directors H.S.C.L. 1, Shakespeare Sarani 8th Floor Calcutta.71 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate For Respondents :Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Order 1.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); (i) That , the Hon'ble court be pleased to quash Annexure (P/1) by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash Annexure (P-2) and P-3) by issuing yet another writ of Certiorari. (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to release all consequential relief such as promotion and back wages of the petitioner including the period of suspension by issuing a writ of Mandamus. (iv) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders deemed fit in the interest of justice. 2.The case in a nutshell is that the the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited on 06.12.1972 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 23.05.1975. Again he was promoted on the post of Divisional Engineer on 14.12.1979 thereafter promoted on the post of Zonal Engineer on 03.10.1985. On 22.08.1989, officials of the CBI, Special Police Establishment Ranchi, conducted a raid at his residential quarter and registered Case No. RC 12(A)/89(R) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent thereto, a departmental charge-sheet dated 14.12.1989 was issued, containing charges identical to those in the criminal case pending before the Special Judge, Jabalpur vide (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, he submits that he has requested for assistance of a legal practitioner to cross-examine CBI officials was also declined. During the enquiry, the petitioner was denied adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence, as his application filed before respondent No. 4 dated 01.12.1990 (Annexure P/5) seeking permission to adduce evidence was rejected. The prosecution examined Shri S.K. Sharma, Inspector CBI Ranchi, and Shri P.C. Chaturvedi, A.M. (Viz) and these witnesses do not deposed anything adverse against the him. He contended that all movable and immovable properties seized during the raid were duly accounted for by him and his family members, who were regular income-tax assessees, supported by relevant documents. Thereafter, on 20/25.10.1994 (Annexure P-2) the respondent No. 1 issued a punishment letter and he was reverted to the lower post of Divisional Engineer and by the same order, he has been transferred from Bhilai Nagar to Panipat (U.P.), against which he preferred an appeal dated 08.12.1994 vide Annexure (P/14). Under the HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. He had earlier challenged the reversion order by filing a writ petition bearing No. 3625/95, and this Court, by order dated 04.12.1996, directed respondent No. 5 to decide the appeal within two months from the date of order. A review petition (MCC No. 52/1997) filed by respondent No. 1 which was disposed of by order dated 14.02.1997. Thereafter, vide communication dated 08.05.1997 (Annexure P-15), he was informed that his appeal had been rejected in the HSCL Board meeting held on 30.04.1997 (Annexure P-16). 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited as Technical Assistant on 06.12.1972 and was successively promoted up to the post of Zonal Engineer on 03.10.1985. He submits that on 22.08.1989, CBI conducted a raid at his residential quarter and registered Case No. RC 12(A)/89(R) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A departmental charge-sheet dated 14.12.1989 was thereafter issued on identical allegations. His request for legal assistance to cross-examine CBI officials was declined, and his application dated 01.12.1990 to adduce defence evidence was rejected. He further submits that the prosecution examined only two witnesses, Shri S.K. Sharma and Shri P.C. Chaturvedi, neither of whom deposed anything adverse. No property declaration forms submitted by the petitioner were produced for comparison with seized documents. He submits that all assets were duly accounted for by the petitioner and his family members, who were regular income-tax assessees. Yet, by order dated 20/25.10.1994 (Annexure P-2), he was reverted to Divisional Engineer and transferred, against which his appeal dated 08.12.1994 was belatedly rejected in 1997. Relying on S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. , it is contended that the appeal ought to have been decided within six months, and this Court may now adjudicate the matter on merits. He submits that in the order sheet dated 09.11.1990, it has been recorded that the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4 reflect that the petitioner did not wish to adduce any evidence. However, this is wholly incorrect, as the petitioner was desirous of producing defence witnesses, but for that purpose the assistance of a legal practitioner was required. All of a sudden, his right to lead evidence was closed, whereupon he filed an application on 01.12.1990 before respondent No. 4 seeking permission to adduce defence evidence, which too was rejected. He further submits that the punishment order suffers from perversity, being based on no evidence. Lastly, it is submitted that denial of back wages, withholding of promotion, and reversion cumulatively amount to violation of natural justice. Further, refusal to allow representation through a legal practitioner, when pitted against trained CBI officials, amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. He further submits that against conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 passed by 3[rd] ASJ, Raipur (Special Judge for CBI) in Special Case No. 22/2002, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 1315/2003 before this Court and vide judgment dated 25.09.2024, the said appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2003 is set aside and the petitioner acquitted from the aforesaid charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adequate opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner at the time of enquiry but it has not been granted. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and impugned orders may be set aside allowing the present petition. To bolster his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. H. C. Goyal reported in AIR 1964 SC 364. Further in another case of J. K. Agrawal Vs. Harayana Seed reported in AIR 1991 SC 1221, andand also relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. P. Kakarao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657. He further submits that since the petitioner has acquitted from the criminal case therefore benefit may also be given in departmental proceedings initiated against him and he relied in case of Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes submissions and submits that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity throughout the disciplinary proceedings. He was permitted to adduce evidence, his witnesses were duly examined and considered, and only thereafter, upon close scrutiny of the entire material on record, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. He submits that therefore it cannot not be said that the action taken was arbitrary or excessive. He further submits that on 22.08.1989, the CBI conducted a raid at the petitioner’s residential premises and instituted a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.09.1989. A charge-sheet dated 14.12.1989 was then issued, alleging failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, and further misconduct inasmuch as he failed to intimate the respondent company regarding his movable properties, thereby contravening Rules 4(1)(i) (ii) and 16(3) of the HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. After considering the entire material available, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 20.10.1994, imposed the punishment of demotion from Zonal Engineer to Divisional Engineer (Civil), fixing his pay at Rs.4,300/- per month in the relevant scale of pay, with immediate effect. He further submits that he preferred a departmental appeal on 19.09.1995. The petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 3628/1995 and vide order dated 04.12.1996 the Hon’ble Court directed to the authority to decide the appeal. The appellate authority, upon independent consideration, rejected the appeal on 08.05.1997 and upheld the order of punishment. The present writ petition has been filed thereafter challenging the said orders. He further submits that on the legal position, it is well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not operate as a bar to disciplinary proceedings, reliance being placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 711 and State of Karnataka v. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563. It is equally well settled that the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry is distinct from that in criminal trial, the former being governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, reliance is placed on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446, and the recent decision in Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025) INSC 149. In the present case, both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment which is proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. The orders impugned are well reasoned and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5.I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5.I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 6.It is not in dispute that on 22.08.1989 the CBI conducted a raid at the residential premises of the petitioner and a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.09.1989 and a charge-sheet dated 14.12.1989 was issued by the respondent company alleging failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, as also misconduct in not intimating the employer regarding his acquisition of movable properties, thereby contravening Rules 4(1)(i) (ii) and 16(3) of the HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, residential premises of the petitioner and a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.09.1989 and a charge-sheet dated 14.12.1989 was issued by the respondent company alleging failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, as also misconduct in not intimating the employer regarding his acquisition of movable properties, thereby contravening Rules 4(1)(i) (ii) and 16(3) of the HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. 7.The record reveals that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. He was permitted to adduce evidence and his witnesses were examined. Upon due consideration of the material available, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 20.10.1994, imposed the penalty of demotion from the post of Zonal Engineer to Divisional Engineer (Civil) with pay fixed at 4,300/- in the relevant pay₹scale, with immediate effect. The petitioner thereafter preferred a departmental appeal which, upon directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 3628/1995, was considered by the Appellate Authority and rejected by order dated 08.05.1997, thereby affirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that his acquittal in the criminal case ought to vitiate the departmental proceedings cannot be accepted. It is a settled proposition of law that acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto bar disciplinary proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nelson Motis (supra), and in Umesh (supra) has clearly held that the scope of criminal trial and departmental proceedings is distinct. The standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings it is the preponderance of probabilities. This distinction has been consistently reiterated in M. Paul Anthony (supra), G.M. Tank (supra), and in the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airport Authority of India (supra). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, is particularly instructive, where the Supreme Court held that disciplinary and appellate authorities are vested with exclusive fact-finding powers and the judicial review jurisdiction cannot normally be used to substitute the penalty imposed, they may do so only in rare, exceptional cases backed by cogent 8. 9. 10. H.Ansari reasoning. In another case the Hon’ble Supreme Court in caseof Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 38, the Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional courts must not disturb findings of fact arrived at by disciplinary authorities unless they are so perverse as to have no evidential basis or are indicative of mala fides. 8. 9. 10. H.Ansari reasoning. In another case the Hon’ble Supreme Court in caseof Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 38, the Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional courts must not disturb findings of fact arrived at by disciplinary authorities unless they are so perverse as to have no evidential basis or are indicative of mala fides. In the present case, both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The findings are based on evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by material. The punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved. After perusal of orders and proceedings it reveals that no violation of principles of natural justice is demonstrated by the petitioner. In the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the departmental authorities unless there is a manifest error of law or perversity in the findings. No such ground is made out in the present case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders (Annexure P/1, P/2 & P/3) do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge