Date: 21.10.2018
Place:
Bangalore
To,
The Under Secretary to the Govt. Of India
(V&L)
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes.
New
Delhi – 110 001.
Through
proper channel
Respected Sir,
Sub: Request for
change in Inquiry Officer displaying prejudice and bias-Reg.
Ref: Your letter F.No:C-14011/5/2016
– V&L dated 04.03.2016
Kindly refer to the above.
This is to inform your good self that
the undersigned had requested the Inquiry Officer the defence documents vide letters
dated 24.11.2017, 13.02.2018, 22.02.2018, 05.10.2018 & 13.10.2018. The
Inquiry Officer rejected the request of defence documents vide letter dated. 12.02.2018,
25.09.2018, & 12.10.2018 & 16.10.2018.
The
rejection of defence document several times by the inquiry officer has to be
seen in the light of the “answer to question
no.6 of Chapter 28 of the Handbook for Inquiry Officers and disciplinary
authorities - issued by ISTM, New Delhi, DoPT, 2013” The relevant extracts
are produced for your ready reference as under:
6. What are the essential ingredients
of a speaking order?
Ans. Speaking order should necessarily
contain the following:
(a)
Context: The order should narrate
the back ground of the case. As has been laid down in a catena of decisions,
law is not to be applied in vacuum. The circumstances that have caused the
issue of the orders have to be brought out clearly in the introductory portion
of the order. For example, if there is representation about incorrect pay
fixation, the speaking order disposing of the representation should narrate how
the anomaly has crept in, etc.
(b)
Contentions: Rival submissions,
where applicable, must be brought out in the order. For example the evidence
led by the presenting officer in support of the charges and by the charged
officer for refuting the charges. Needless to add that there may be cases
wherein submissions may be unilateral as is the case of stepping up of pay,
etc. Even in the course of disciplinary proceedings, there may be some
instances wherein the concept of rival submission may not apply as in the case of
representation for change of Inquiring Authority or for engagement of legal
practitioner as defence assistant.
(c)
Consideration: The order should
explicitly evaluate the submissions made by the parties vis-à-vis each other
and in the light of the relevant statutory provisions. Each submission by the
parties must be considered with a view to decide about its acceptability or
otherwise.
(d)
Conclusions: Outcome of the
consideration is the ultimate purpose of the order. It must be ensured that
each conclusion arrived at in the order must rest on facts and law.
In
this regard and in the light of above facts, I would like to state that the rejection
of defence documents by the Inquiry Officer was just a conclusion of his individual standpoint without ever looking into
the context, contentions &
consideration of the undersigned. Hence the order passed by the Inquiry
Officer is not a speaking order.
On the issue of relevance, the Inquiry
Officer has rejected the defence documents despite my repeated request where the
undersigned had placed reliance on “3.5
of Chapter XI of the Vigilance Manual (1991 Ed) & the answer to question no.7 of Chapter 17 of the
Handbook for inquiry officers and disciplinary authorities - issued by ISTM,
New Delhi, DoPT, 2013” reads as under:
Denial of
access to documents which have a relevance to the case will amount to violation
of the reasonable opportunity mentioned in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.
Access may not, therefore, be denied except on grounds of relevancy or in the
public interest or in the interest of the security of the state. The question
of relevancy has to be looked at from the point of view of the Government
servant and if there is any possible line of defense to which the document may
be in some way relevant, though the relevance is not clear at the time when the
Government servant makes the request, the request should not be rejected. The
power to deny access on the grounds of public interest or security of State
should be exercised only when there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to
believe that public interest or security of the State will clearly suffer. Such
occasions should be rare.
A copy of letter dated 13.10.2018 written
to Inquiry Officer is attached for your ready reference. The letter will make
it clear that “the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
mandates that “defence documents must be given to charged officer”, the Vigilance Manual also provide that “the
question of relevancy has to be looked at from the point of view of the
Government servant and the request should not be rejected”, the Apex Court judgment states that “there must be a speaking order
and defence document must not be denied”, the charged officer is
repeatedly pleading for defence documents what is legally due but the inquiry
officer action of rejecting crucial defence documents again and again speaks of
contempt for law, display of total arbitrariness, prejudice, bias and total lack
of fairness.
The department has launched vigilance
proceedings after more than a decade against the undersigned. The gist of the
charges are:-
1.
Revenue Loss : Article - 1 charge is the base of vigilance.
2.
No prior approval of reporting officer – Not
following circular
3.
Challenging integrity and devotion to duty
Let me share that I have the evidence
to prove that the charges are falsely fabricated. Instead of revenue loss there
is a revenue gain to the department in the search assessment. The vigilance case
was orchestered by the departmental witnesses by not only misleading the
vigilance proceedings but also by deliberately suppressing the crucial facts to
victimise me.
Let me reiterate boldly that in my
case there was no Vigilance Angle as mandated by Para 1.6.1 of the Vigilance Manual ever existed. The Vigilance Manual explains what the Vigilance Angle is. “According
to the Vigilance Manual, obtaining illegal gratification of any kind by corrupt
means or by abusing the official position, possession of assets
disproportionate to known source of income, misappropriation, forgery, cheating
and other criminal offences are cases having vigilance angle.” But the borderline case has been
highlighted flouting all rules and reasoning. Let me share the darker shade of
my case relating to departmental witnesses and the Vigilance Proceeding right
from the CVO to CVC is totally ignorant about it.
Few months prior to creating the
vigilance case the present departmental witnesses deliberately spoiled the ACR
for the year 2006-07 by converting the OUTSTANDING rating to ADVERSE. The same
was expunged by the competent Authority as the entire case was fabricated and
motivated. A copy of the same is available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-08-05T21:03:00%2B05:30&max-results=7 for your
ready reference.
As about the creation of the vigilance
case, the same defence witnesses when they failed to spoil my ACR they
vindictively chose to destroy my career by falsely fabricating the case. I
approached the senior authority to look into it. A copy of the same is
available vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-12-26T22:03:00%2B05:30&max-results=7&start=1&by-date=false for your
ready reference. After going through the above background stories it will be
clearly established that there is little room for junior “Outstanding” officers
who has access to justice through internal administrative machinery despite
having a clean record, when the unscrupulous senior officers have decided to
hound and fix him. As I could not get justice I have put my resignation thrice starting
from the year 2008, which has been rejected and kept in abeyance till the
disposal of my vigilance case.
As the department has used the entire
machinery and resources and created a case against me after a decade then it is
incumbent that the charged officer should be given a level playing field by
providing documents which are necessary for his own defence. The undersigned is
not asking for any confidential document but the documents which are matter of
utmost importance leading to his innocence. This is not an ordinary case but a
rare case about an “OUTSTANDING OFFICER” who was never issued a single memo for
any misdemeanour, misconduct or issue of integrity not only for the year
2006-07 but any time prior to it.
In the interest of equity and justice,
I bring to your notice that Inquiry Officer has chosen to ignore all my
requests including the one made on 13.10.2018 which makes my case as one of the
rare case in which the request of defence document is rejected. It is all the
more transparently evident that Inquiry Officer has decided against all the
cannons of law exhibiting contempt for the rule based disciplinary proceedings.
The non-speaking order of the Inquiry Officer is not only erroneous but totally
arbitrary displaying total prejudice and bias against the undersigned.
I have already faced the issue of
personal bias on 06.11.2017, where I had shared openly with the Inquiry Officer
that “he is conducting the proceeding by
already treating me as guilty and treating me with indignity.” This skirmish
happened in the presence of the Presenting Officer. During the proceedings the Inquiry
Officer also declined to give me the photocopy of the note sheet of the
proceedings wherein I had appended my signature. When I demanded the note sheet
writing then the Inquiry Officer made me to write the entire note sheet in my
personal handwriting. The Inquiry Officer has failed to realise that he is not
only appointed by the same authority, who has also appointed me but also the fact
that the vigilance proceedings edifice rests on the principle of natural
justice where one of the foundation is “No
one can be condemned unheard.”
In
view of the facts, circumstances and the case laws of the Apex Court mentioned in
my letter dated 13.10.2018, I have reason to believe that the
disciplinary proceedings in my case are being reduced to farce as
against to hold the same in accordance of provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
Vigilance Manual and the judgement of the Apex Court. If the defence document legally
available to the charged officer is difficult in accessing from the inquiry
officer, then the question of fairness, transparency and justice is the least
the charged officer can expect out of this proceeding led by the inquiry
officer. Therefore, I have been left with no option but to request
to the Disciplinary Authority to change the inquiry officer in my case on the
grounds of personal bias.
As
I have moved the petition for the change of Inquiry Officer on the grounds of
bias I request you to stay the disciplinary proceedings to the appropriate
reviewing authority for considering the application and passing appropriate
orders thereon. For my proposition, I place reliance on
notification vide Cabinet Sectt. Department of Personnel, OM No. 39/40/70-Ests.(A) dated
9th November, 1972 which reads as:“It has accordingly been decided
that whenever an application is moved by a Government servant against whom
disciplinary proceedings are initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules against the
inquiry officer on grounds of bias, the proceedings should be stayed and
the application referred, along with the relevant material, to the appropriate
reviewing authority for considering the application and passing appropriate
orders thereon.”
Thanking you.
Yours
faithfully,
Sd/-
(Sanghi Sri Hari Rao)
Encl.
1.
My Letter Dated 13.10.2018
CC to:-
1.
The Principal Director General Of Income-Tax
(Vigilance), New Delhi
2.
The Addl. CIT (Vigilance), Bangalore
3.
The Inquiry Officer, CIT (A)-3, Bangalore
4.
The Presenting Officer, the DCIT Central
Circle 2(2) Bangalore.
No comments:
Post a Comment