Review of Orders passed by Commissioner(A) - Strange Ways?
WE have come across a Departmental appeal against an order passed by a Commissioner (Appeals). The Order had been reviewed by two Commissioners. The Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the order is now Chief Commissioner in the same city and the two Commissioners who reviewed (audaciously) her orders are junior to her and are now working under her charge as Commissioners. Quite often senior Commissioners who are not in the good books of the Board are posted as Appellate Commissioners and the jurisdictional Commissioners who review the orders of these senior Appellate Commissioners are junior to them and as in the present case may have to work under them later.
When orders passed by jurisdictional Commissioners are reviewed by a Committee of two Chief Commissioners, what is the logic in review of orders of appellate Commissioners by a Committee of two Commissioners who might be junior to the Appellate Commissioner?
In any case, the whole system of review by Committee of Commissioners and Chief Commissioners has thoroughly failed - rather the Commissioners and Chief Commissioners ensured that the system failed. Today it's a big farce. A Superintendent in the Review Section decides that the order has to be reviewed and two Commissioners/Chief Commissioners without even discussing the issue approve the Superintendent's proposal. Should we continue this farce?