ISHTIAQ AHMED vs INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX
The petitioner, an Inspector in the Income-tax Department, challenged a disciplinary order withholding one future increment due to alleged misconduct, including making false complaints and unauthorized seizures. After an initial appeal was dismissed as time-barred and a subsequent appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over minor penalties, the Supreme Court previously remanded the matter, affirming the Tribunal's competence to hear such appeals. Upon remand, the Tribunal again dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty justified and procedurally sound. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in his absence without proper association, and that findings were based on personal inquiries without affording him an opportunity to refute the allegations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's contentions regarding the procedural fairness of the inquiry—specifically the lack of opportunity to participate or refute findings—warranted further judicial examination.
- Can a disciplinary penalty be lawfully imposed based on an inquiry conducted in the absence of the accused official?
- Is a finding of misconduct valid if it relies on personal inquiries by the Inquiry Officer without providing the accused an opportunity to refute them?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order imposing a minor penalty?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner is an Inspector in the Income-tax Department. There were allegations against him that he had made false complaints against his colleagues, paid unauthorised visits to the assessee, seized their documents without proper authority and extracted money from them. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. An inquiry was held and on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer he was served with a show-cause notice. After he had been given an opportunity of being heard the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner directed that his one future increment falling due on 1-12-1987 be withheld. He filed an appeal against the penalty imposed upon him but addressed it incorrectly to the Regional Commissioner of Income-tax. The Regional Commissioner sent the memorandum of appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax. By the time the memorandum reached the Commissioner the appeal had become barred time. The Commissioner dismissed it on that ground. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal was not competent to hear an appeal against an order imposing a minor penalty. He challenged the order of the learned Tribunal before this Court. His appeal was accepted and the Tribunal was held competent to hear the appeal against even a minor penalty. The matter was then remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision. After the remand the learned Tribunal again dismissed the appeal with the following observations: "After hearing the parties, we find that the minor penalty imposed on the appellant was done after careful consideration of the facts and following the prescribed procedure and the question of appellant being recently appointed and new in service does absolve him for not following the prescribed rules/procedure. Even the minor penalty of withholding one future increment falling on 1-12-1987 was quite lenient and waiving off/setting aside the penalty was not substantiated and justified. We accordingly dismiss the appeal as having no merits and substance:"
The petitioner again seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is stated in support of this petition that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the various contentions raised by the petitioner. In this case the Inquiry Officer had held the inquiry in his absence without associating him therewith and based his finding on personal enquiries without giving him an opportunity to refute them. Thus, no order of punishment could be based on his finding.
3. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave is granted.