Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hon'ble Mr. Mohd Jamshed, Member (A) The applicant is a 1982 batch Indian Revenue Service Officer. He was posted as Deputy Commissioner Special Range-I at Rajkot during the year 1996-97. It is stated that during this time large number of search actions were carried out by the Income Tax Department, which resulted in widespread resentment in business community. Certain actions were taken by the senior officers of IT Department to streamline the procedure so as to eliminate any element of illegality in obtaining forcible confessions etc. The applicant submits that decisions were taken by the Senior Officers to ignore confessional statements that were obtained under duress and to take reasonable view on the merits of each case at the time of approving block assessments. It is submitted that during this period, one Shri Vijay Khanna, CIT took proactive measures in ensuring that the work is done in accordance with laws and rules. He also accorded approval for about 50 block assessments under Section 158BG of the IT Act and thus all search assessments were completed on the broad commitment made by the Department and wherever the disclosures were not based on evidence, suitable instructions were issued to the Assessing Officers as per the merits of each case. During this period, the applicant was working under Shri Vijay Khanna, CIT and was also responsible for passing certain orders under Section 158BG for block assessments. It is further stated that these corrective actions taken by the Senior IT Officers also resulted in transfers of officers allegedly involved in irregularities and resulted in complaints from public including anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. Two such anonymous/pseudonymous complaints dated 18.02.1997 and 02.04.1997 were also made against CIT, Shri Vijay Khanna and his subordinate officers in the name of one Shri M.P. Sharda. During further investigations made in 1998 by Additional CIT (Vigilance), the persons whose name appeared in the complaints categorically denied to have made the aforesaid complaints. Although in terms of letter dated 31.01.2002 containing CVC instructions, no action was supposed to be taken on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints, the CIT Shri Vijay Khanna was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 20.10.2004 on seven articles of charge. Article-V of the Charge Memorandum issued to Shri Vijay Khanna was apparently based on the said anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. The said Shri Vijay Khanna filed O.A. No. 2698/2004 and this Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2005 quashed the Charge Memorandum. A WP(C) No. 507/2007 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2007 upheld the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Charge Memorandum against CIT Vijay Khanna was dropped. Applicant contends that his case is similar to that of CIT Vijay Khanna.

2. The applicant has made these averments in the O.A. primarily to indicate that these developments provide background for the subsequent actions. The Charge Memorandum issued to CIT Vijay Khanna was for the period, when the applicant was working under him as Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, the applicant was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 20.06.2014 which is stated to be also based on the same anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints, that was the basis for issuing Charge Memorandum to Shri Vijay Khanna, which was subsequently quashed and set aside. The applicant has challenged the Charge Memorandum dated 20.06.2014 by filing this O.A. He is seeking quashing and setting aside of this Charge Memorandum on the ground that he was acting as a quasi- judicial authority and, therefore, the orders passed by him cannot be construed as a misconduct. It is also submitted that the disciplinary action was initiated on the basis of complaints which were verified to be anonymous/pseudonymous and, therefore, these proceedings are in clear violation of CVC guidelines which prohibit all Government Departments not to take any action on such complaints. It is also indicated that the applicant, as a measure of abundant caution, has previously filed O.A. No. 1137/2009. In the present O.A., the applicant has sought the following relief(s):

8. The applicant is challenging this Charge Memorandum not for the allegations levelled therein, but on the grounds that the basis of these charges is perhaps two anonymous/pseudonymous complaints and no cognizance of the same should be taken, in view of the CVC guidelines. Learned counsel for the applicant has also vehemently argued the same point. On the one hand, this aspect is being vehemently argued and on the other, the charges are not being denied on merits in the O.A. The technical point that has been argued again and again is about the basis of this Charge Memorandum being anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. The so called anonymous/pseudonymous complaints have neither been enclosed by the applicant nor by the respondents, except for a mention of such anonymous/pseudonymous complaints dated 18.02.1997 and 02.04.1997. This Tribunal does not have the benefit of seeing what was mentioned in these complaints. It is also a fact that irregularities committed or acts of misconduct cannot be altogether ignored, simply because these have been brought to the notice of the concerned authority through an anonymous/pseudonymous complaint. There have been number of guidelines issued by the CVC on this aspect. Based on the earlier CVC guidelines, the DoPT OM dated 29.09.1992 prescribes that although no action is required to be taken on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints, provided they may enquire into such complaints which contain verifiable details. This practice has remained in force till the issuance of CVC Circular No. 3(v)/99/2 dated 29.06.1999, which prescribes that no action should be taken on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints and these should be just filed. This was reiterated vide Commission's Circular dated 31.01.2002. The entire premise of the applicant is based on the fact that the Charge Memorandum contains allegations which are based on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints and, therefore, the Charge Memorandum itself is not tenable and the same should be quashed. A reference has been made to the case of CIT Vijay Khanna wherein the Charge Memorandum was quashed and set aside by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2698/2004 vide order dated 20.07.2005 and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

6. All Administrative Authorities/ CVOs may note the above clarifications for guidance / compliance while handling and processing matters arising out of anonymous / pseudonymous complaints."

Taking note of the decision of this Tribunal and on the recommendations of the learned AG, the CVC has issued clarification, which clearly prescribes that where the action was initiated on anonymous/pseudonymous Complaints prior to the issue of CVC's circular dated 29.06.1999 and was pending as on 29.06.1999, it can be pursued further to its logical end. Not only that, it also clarifies that where action was initiated on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints between the period 11.10.2002 and 25.11.2014 with prior concurrence of CVC but is pending, further action is permissible on such complaints.