Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A.C.Joseph vs Union Of India . on 27 February, 2020
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2622-2623/2012
A.C.JOSEPH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
We have examined the matter with the assistance of Ms. Stuti Krishn, learned counsel for the appellant who addressed us initially and thereafter, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Department.
A search was conducted in the premises of an assessee when balance sheet as on 31.03.1995 was found showing a capital balance of Rs.1,26,51,850/-. The assessee made a disclosure under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act of an amount of Rs.134.60 lakhs and a revised return was filed on 10.01.1997 requesting for taking the disclosed of amount of Rs.117 lakhs net in the block assessment.
The appellant was on a promotion holding the office of an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at the relevant stage of time Signature Not Verified and in the course of undertaking the block assessments of three Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2020.03.05 16:54:59 IST assessees sought the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax Reason: which was granted on 28.4.1997. The block assessment were computed 2 but excluding the amount disclosed and shown in the revised return which was taken as part of that return. It is stated that both the block assessment and regular assessment became final.
The appellant even earned his promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 01.10.2000 and his travails began almost five years after the assessments were computed as the Vigilance Department was of the view that the amount should have been taken as a part of the block assessment and that has caused revenue loss.
The charge-sheet was issued and the departmental proceedings were concluded both against the appellant and Mr. B. Rama Kumar, Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), who had approved the same. The Commission of Income Tax was found guilty of displaying negligence and was let of with a warning. However, in the case of the appellant, the Central Vigilance Commission suggested a punishment other than censure on the appellant. In the meantime, the subordinates of the appellant were promoted and the disciplinary proceedings were still kept pending. The final order was passed only on 16.10.2006 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect.
The appellant on account of non-inclusion of his name in the panel for Joint Commissioner of Income Tax approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench which allowed the O.A.No.890/2006 vide order dated 01.04.2008 but that order was set aside by the High Court on 18.12.2008 though it converted the punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect to a punishment of stoppage of increment 3 for a period of one year. It is against this order that the present appeal was filed and leave was granted on 23.01.2012. We are informed that on 03.10.2012, the appellant voluntarily retired from service.
We posed a query to learned counsel for the appellant as to what really survives in this matter. Learned counsel submits that though the appellant has taken voluntarily retirement, it is a matter of what is perceived to be an excessive punishment imposed on him in the given facts of the case when a superior has been let of with a warning. It is his submission that the appellant acted bona fide and he seeks to remove the black mark against his name, the monetary aspect not being important.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the punishment as modified by the High Court is eminently suitable in the given facts of the case though no mala fides were attributed to the respondent but the respondent was found negligent which would justify the imposition of the punishment in view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan - (1993) 2 SCC 56.
We have examined the issue.
We cannot say the respondent department was at an error in proceeding against the respondent and the Commissioner of Income Tax albeit it was a case of negligence though it could be said that the respondent, in his wisdom, had taken a particular view. There was no aspect of a financial gain to the respondent. We also note 4 that the superior officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax was put up with papers by the appellant and approved it and in his case, a warning was issued. We are of the view that it is a fit case where there should be a parity of punishment and the appellant should also be visited with the consequences of a warning being issued. We modify the same accordingly.
However, with the passage of time and the appellant having taken voluntarily retirement, we do not think it is a case of giving of consequential monetary benefits or promotion to the appellant.
The appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
……………………………………...J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ……………………………………...J. [K.M. JOSEPH] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2020.
5
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2622-2623/2012
A.C.JOSEPH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA . & ORS. Respondent(s)
([ PART-HEARD BY HON'BLE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HON'BLE K.M. JOSEPH ,JJ. ] ) Date : 27-02-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Appellant(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. V. Rangam, AOR Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Adv. Ms. Stuti Krishn, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P.V. Yogeshvaran, Adv. Mr. Ankita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K. Chandra Mohan, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ANITA RANI AHUJA) (ASHA SUNDRIYAL)
COURT MASTER AR CUM PS
[Signed order is placed on the file]