Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Unknown vs Union Of India on 18 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1135 of 2008
New Delhi, this the 18th day of February, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE DR.(MRS.) VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER(A)
Shri Abid Ali, Lower Division Clerk, Office of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Agra
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATES: SHRI B.S. MAINEE AND MS. MEENU MAINEE
VERSUS
Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 16/69, Ayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur.
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Sanjay Place, Agra.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI V P UPPAL
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
This O.A. initially came to be allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.12.2008. In the judicial review, the order was set aside by the Delhi High Court which negated the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. It was noticed that the Tribunal had not dealt with the plea raised on behalf of the applicant that it was a case of complete want of evidence. While setting aside the order dated 10.12.2008, the High Court remanded this case for disposal afresh but limited to the question whether there is any evidence to indict the respondent or it is a case of no evidence.
2. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that the finding recorded by the Inquiring Authority deserved outright invalidation inasmuch as it was based upon certain communications addressed by the manufacturers and those communications had been taken into consideration without any formal proof thereof. It was argued, in the context, that none from the manufacturers office had been examined in the inquiry to prove those communications and the applicant, obviously, had had no opportunity to test the veracity of the contents of those communications on the touchstone of cross-examination. On that averment, the plea raised is that there was complete want of evidence in the inquiry proceedings.
3. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contested the validity of the plea aforementioned and pointed out that the statement made by the concerned chemist is adequate enough to validate the finding recorded by the Inquiring Authority.
4. For enabling proper appreciation of the controversy about the point in issue, it would be appropriate to notice the factual scenario with precision. The applicant was indicted by the Inquiring Authority on a charge of having claimed false medical reimbursement on the basis of cash memos issued by the concerned chemist. It was found that the relevant medicines, carrying the indicated batch numbers, were not available with that chemist (on the date of the purported sale) and the drug manufacturer had not, in fact, sold medicines carrying those batch numbers to him.
5. It is common ground otherwise that none from the drug manufacturers side was examined in the inquiry proceedings. At the same time the applicant cannot wish away the testimony of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Chemist, who was not in a position to deny the correctness of the departmental allegations but tried to wriggle out of the predicament by making an abortive attempt in the relevant behalf. Initially, he reiterated that the medicines noticed in the cash memo had been sold by him. When he was called upon to indicate wherefrom had he purchased those medicines, he stated that it was a common practice to obtain medicines from a neighbouring chemist in case any such medicines required by a customer were not available. When he was called upon to indicate wherefrom did he get the batch numbers which came to be mentioned in the cash memo, he stated that necessary information was obtained from the medicine wrapper itself but that the batch numbers came to be incorrectly recorded in a state of hurry. When he was called upon to indicate how incorrect batch numbers came to be recorded in four cash memos, he wanted the Inquiring Authority to believe that it was a case of co-incidence. The Inquiring Authority did not accept the presentation and we concur with the view obtained by the Inquiring Authority.
6. Faced with the predicament of having to explain the above-quoted variation in the statement made by Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued that the witness aforementioned had addressed a communication dated 19.5.2006 to the Inquiring Authority to the effect that the statement aforementioned came to be made by him under undue influence of an indicated official. This, the learned counsel argued, is adequate enough to take the wind out the sails of the department.
7. We do not buy the argument which is even otherwise specious on the face of it. Once the witness aforementioned had given the aforesaid statement before the Inquiring Authority, there was no understandable reason for him to stage a volte face and grant exoneration to the applicant. It is obvious in the facts and circumstances of the case that the aforementioned communication addressed by the witness is a procured documentation, aimed at bailing out the applicant from the predicament in which he landed himself on account of making a false medical claim.
8. We are, thus, clear in our mind that the present is not a case of complete want of evidence and further that non-proof of the communication received from the witness notwithstanding, there was enough evidence before the Inquiring Authority to record the impugned finding. This O.A. shall accordingly stand dismissed.
9. There shall be no order as to the costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(Justice S.D. Anand) Member (J) (Dr. Veena Chhotray) Member (A) bss