Date: 19.11.2018
Place:
Bangalore
To,
The
Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance),
2nd
Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
New
Delhi-110003.
Through
proper channel
Respected Sir,
Sub: Request for
change in Inquiry Officer displaying prejudice and bias -Reg.
Ref: Your letter F.No:
DGIT(V)/DP/573/4898 dated 12.11.2018.
Kindly refer to the above.
This is to inform your good self that
the undersigned had requested for the change of Inquiry Officer as the Inquiry
Officer has refused the request for supply of 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 letters
dated. 12.02.2018, 25.09.2018, & 12.10.2018 & 16.10.2018.
In
my letter I had specifically referred to the issue of rejection of defence
documents by the Inquiry Officer was, not
on the basis of a speaking order. I had placed reliance on 3.5 of Chapter XI of the Vigilance Manual
(1991 Ed) which 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.
I had also attached copy of my letter dated
13.10.2018 written to Inquiry Officer for your ready reference. The letter makes
it amply clear that the “defence documents must be given to charged
officer”, as the Vigilance
Manual is mandating 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
has also decided in many cases that “there must be a speaking order and defence
document must not be denied”. My repeated pleading for defence
documents what is legally due coupled with the inquiry officer’s 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.
As
the Inquiry Officer engaged in total violation of the facts, circumstances and
the case laws of the Apex Court mentioned in my letter dated 13.10.2018, I had
stated 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. I also contended that If
the defence document legally acessible to the charged officer are being denied
by 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 was left with no option but to request
to the Disciplinary Authority to change the inquiry officer in my case.
For
my this request I places 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.”
However, to my utter dismay, my request of change of Inquiry
Officer has been summarily rejected by your good self by observing that Inquiry
Officer has communicated the reasons of denial of documents. Your letter also
goes on to say that the request of undersigned vide letter dated 21.10.2018 has
been considered and not found to be tenable and hence rejected. In fact nothing
can be better example of such a cryptic and non speaking order passed by your
good self. Ipso Facto, you had neither discussed the reasons of denial nor
discussed the Apex Court judgment nor discussed the instruction contained in
Vigilance Manual and rejected the request in totally arbitrary manner. Your
letter dated 12.11.2018 is a sad commentary on the way the bureaucracy feel as
if it is beyond the pale of law or law
unto itself. You have shown absolutely no respect for Apex Court judgments
regarding principles of natural justice and need to pass speaking order or for
that matter for instructions contained in Vigilance Manual of the Government of
India.
In this scenario, wherein the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary
Authority has colluded with each other in flagrantly flouting the law of the
land and deny the right to defense documents to the charged officer, the
undersigned is left with no option but to make one more request for change of
Inquiry Officer and in case the Disciplinary Authority maintains status quo, I
shall be approaching Central Administrative Tribunal to redress my grievance
regarding non supply of defense documents. It is really ironical to observe
that when the undersigned made complaint against the Inquiry Officer for
passing non speaking order, the Disciplinary Authority also passed a non
speaking order and thereby compounded the problem. Accordingly, it may be seen
that neither the inquiry Officer nor you are ready to follow the principles of
natural justice nor interested in following mandatory instructions contained in
the Vigilance Manual. Denial of sufficient opportunity to defend myself is my
right under the principles of natural justice and in no case the same can be denied
to me. Thus, this is the last and final opportunity being given to you for
allowing me to change in Inquiry Officer on the ground of bias, in accordance
with the DOPT instructions quoted hereinabove, failing which I shall be
constrained to approach the Bengaluru bench of CAT.
I had clearly brought to your notice how the vigilance proceedings
were falsely created against me despite being an OUTSTANDING OFFICER and made to suffer for more than a decade. Let
me also reveal the truth of the
vigilance case that the primary charge
is of under assessment where it is alleged that I did assessment in the hands
of three partnerships which was hitherto done under a single individual.
The entire proceeding is false and fabricated by the prosecution witnesses as the assessment was done in the hands of
five partnerships which were hitherto done under a single individual which
lead to revenue gain than underassessment. The prosecution witnesses purposely
left the two partnerships as totalling of three would naturally appear to be in
loss as totalling of five partnerships was actually resulting in revenue gain.
This truth in the vigilance proceedings will be of devastating consequences as
it will reveal that false case can be triggered against an honest outstanding
officer where the administration can be a mute spectator from top to bottom and
there is no protection to honest officers but the rogue officers levelling
false cases can go scot free.
I also brought how the vigilance was falsely fabricated by
prosecution witness. I demand from your good self that creation of false case
should be viewed seriously as it has destroyed an unblemished career of an OUTSTANDING OFFICER from a reserved
community. I seek the answer from your end that why you are being totally
silent and have not taken any initiative to find truth. I had brought clearly brought this matter before you vide link http://sanghihari.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-08 05T21:03:00%2B05:30&max-results=7 that
creation of false vigilance proceedings had open discrimination on the basis of
caste prejudice by the prosecution witness as the same syndicate attempted to
spoil my ACR just before creating a false vigilance case. This matter has been
clearly sidelined and no inquiry has ever been conducted even in the vigilance
proceedings till date, though it is a mandate that no innocent must be harmed
through creation of false vigilance proceedings. The matter of protecting the
innocent gains more importance when one belongs to reserved community. I demand
that the vigilance proceedings should also probe whether there was a false and
fabricated charge against the charged officer. When it is found to be true then
all the officers’ part of this conspiracy should be dealt with iron hand through
an independent inquiry for taking suitable action against the rogue officers.
In the letter you have requested me to cooperate in Inquiry
proceedings for early disposal. Let me share that cooperation is not one way
traffic but a two-way process. Your good self will appreciate this fact only if
you have personally undergone the whole cycle experience in my flesh and bones.
Hence, I find no cooperation from the side of department to provide me crucial
defence documents to properly defend myself as guaranteed in Article 14 of
Indian Constitution. Now, I find that the entire proceeding is eyewash for
early disposal for statistical purpose as every cannon of the principle of
natural justice has been flouted. I neither have faith in the Inquiry Officer nor
in the Disciplinary Authority as both have colluded and absolutely have no
respect for Apex Court judgments regarding principles of natural justice and
need to pass speaking order or for that matter for instructions contained in
Vigilance Manual of the Government of India.
If the proceedings are still continued without giving me the
defence documents then I will presume that both the Inquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary Authority are being unfair and unjust in conducting this
proceeding and have deliberately planned to fix me than bringing the truth to
the forefront which is the core objective of the vigilance proceedings.
Thanking you.
Yours
faithfully,
(Sanghi Sri Hari Rao)
CC to:-
1.
The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi
2.
The Chairman, National Commission for
Scheduled Caste, New Delhi.
3.
The Under Secretary to the Govt. Of India
(V&L), New Delhi
4.
The Addl. CIT (Vigilance), Bangalore
5.
The Inquiry Officer, CIT (A)-3, Bangalore
6.
The Presenting Officer, the DCIT Central
Circle 2(2) Bangalore.
No comments:
Post a Comment