IRS officer - Dismissal from Service consequent to conviction in corruption case - High Court declines to intervene.
IN this case with many twists in the tale, the petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against whom a chargesheet had been issued by the Department on 29.10.2003. He was dismissed from service for accepting illegal gratification.
This was quashed by the CAT on 9.7.2009. However the CAT permitted the Department to issue fresh memo and the same was issued, which was again challenged and which was allowed by the Tribunal in 2012.
Simultaneously prosecution proceedings were initiated and the trial court on 8.11.2012 held him guilty of offence under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment. He has challenged the judgment of the Trial Court in Criminal Appeal No.1927 of 2012. The appeal is admitted and his sentence is suspended. However, his request for suspension of conviction is refused.
At this stage, the Department issued another Show Cause Notice proposing to dismiss him from service in view of the conviction by the Court. He challenged the Show Cause Notice before the CAT which dismissed his application. Against the CAT order, he is before the High Court arguing his case in person.
The High Court saw no reason to interfere at the Show Cause Notice stage. The Court observed, "Admitted facts, however, are that the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. His sentence is suspended, but the conviction is not. As per the settled law, therefore, it would be open for the department to proceed further on the basis of such conviction. However, the petitioner has approached the courts merely at a show cause notice stage, we are not inclined to entertain this challenge only on this ground without expressing any further opinion. The contention of the petitioner was not that since he has filed appeal against his conviction that the department cannot exercise powers under rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. His contention, however, was that in the previous departmental proceedings, he was exonerated by virtue of the judgment of the Tribunal and therefore, despite his subsequent conviction on same set of facts, no punishment can be imposed. As noted, since the challenge is at the stage of show cause notice, keeping all contentions open, we allow the department to take a final view on the representation made by the petitioner in the background of the show cause notice issued to him for imposition of major punishment. The same shall be done unmindful of any of the observations made in this order or in the judgment of the Tribunal impugned in this petition."