# Alok Kumar Mitra v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1422
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2736 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Amitabh Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-kumar-mitra-v-u-o-i-anr-54152
- **Pages:** 16

## Text

_Characters 0–39,632 of 51,517. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39632 for what follows._

1422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1422
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 2736 of 2023

Alok Kumar Mitra ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Permissibility of making plea of not getting approval of the Appointment Committee to challenge the order
of compulsory retirement passed by the President, being the appointing authority.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Compulsory retirement - Commissioner of Income Tax - Order of compulsory
retirement was issued by the President - No approval of Appointment Committee was taken
before compulsory retirement - Effect - Validity of compulsory retirement was challenged on
one more ground that Review Committee failed to consider the entire service record -
Permissibility : (E-1)
Held : Appointing authority of the petitioner is the President and the order of compulsory retirement has been
issued by the President. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that no approval was taken from the competent
authority before passing the order of compulsory retirement, is misconceived, as the President, being the
appointing authority of the petitioner, has passed the order dated 10.06.2019 - The Review Committee
considered the entire service record of the petitioner including his ACRs/APARs, charge memos communicated
as well as uncommunicated remarks, disciplinary cases etc. and recommended the compulsory retirement of
petitioner which was accepted by the Appropriate Authority i.e. the President - The contention of the
petitioner that the procedure prescribed under the Office Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and
11.09.2015 has not been followed is also misconceived. [Para 25, 27 and 28]

Case Law Cited
State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314; S. Ram Chandra Raju vs. State of
Orissa, (1994) 3 SCC 424; State of Gujarat and another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529; Union
of India vs. Col. J. N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458; Gian Singh Mann vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
(1980) 4 SCC 266; State of U.P. vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam, (1977) 4 SCC 345; Writ A No. 24856 of 2020,
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and another decided on 31.05.2022; Baikuntha Nath Das vs.
District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299; Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2022, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs.
Union of India and another decided on 03.03.2023; State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92;
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551; Ram Murti
Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2020) 1 SCC 801 - referred to.

List of Acts
Fundamental Rule 56(j); Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015.

List of Keywords
2 All. Alok Kumar Mitra Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1423
Compulsory retirement, Integrity, Reference, Recommendation, Adverse material, Disciplinary proceeding,
Arbitrary, Public interest, Standard of efficiency, Substantive appointment, Approval, Satisfaction, Chargesheet, Service record, Subjective satisfaction, Due process, Character roll, Adverse remark.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in
Original Application No. 332/00450/2019.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners: J. N. Mathur, Sr. Adv.; Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya, Vatsala
Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents: Devrishi Kumar.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Shri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition arises from the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00450/2019
"Alok Kumar Mitra vs. Union of India", whereby the petitioner had challenged before the learned
Tribunal the order dated 10.06.2019, by which he was compulsorily retired from the post of
Commissioner of Income Tax in the Indian Revenue Service by invoking Fundamental Rule 56(j)
as well as the order dated 16.08.2019, by which his representation against the order of compulsory
retirement was rejected.

3. The petitioner was an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, 1992 Batch. After selection
through the Union Public Service Commission, he was initially appointed to the post of Assistant
Commissioner (Income Tax). Upon completion of his training, he was posted in the Income Tax
Department and served there from 1995 to 2014. From 2014 to 2017, he was on deputation to the
Government of Uttar Pradesh as Chief Executive Officer of the State Agency for Comprehensive
Health and Integrated Services (SACHIS). Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Senior Administrative Grade) vide order dated 16.09.2015.

4. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) III, Kochi (Kerala) vide order dated 10.06.2019, which was challenged before the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. The said order was served upon the petitioner
on 11.06.2019. He submitted a representation dated 30.06.2019 against the order of compulsory
retirement in terms of paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.10.1976, which was
rejected vide order dated 16.08.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of compulsory retirement dated
10.06.2019 passed under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is perverse, inasmuch as it is contrary to the
guidelines contained in the Office Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and 11.09.2015. It
has been submitted that the due process prescribed therein was not followed and the petitioner s
representation was rejected by a non-speaking and unreasoned order, without adhering to the
timeline provided in the Office Memorandum dated 11.10.1976.
1424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. It has further been submitted that neither approval from the Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet (ACC) was obtained nor the Central Vigilance Commission was consulted before passing
the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019, which is contrary to the Office Memorandum
dated 10.05.1974.

7. It has also been submitted that the Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated
21.03.2014 providing for periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56(j). Paragraphs 4 and 5
thereof prescribe the criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making
recommendations for compulsory retirement.

8. It has been submitted that as per the Office Memorandum dated 21.03.2014, only those
officers whose integrity is doubtful or who have become ineffective in the discharge of their duties
ought to be considered for compulsory retirement. For this purpose, only the immediate preceding
five years of the service record or the service record post-promotion is required to be taken into
consideration. In the specific case of the petitioner, both his past service record and his record after
promotion are stated to be excellent.

9. It has also been submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015 issued by the
Government of India makes reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in
State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314. Paragraph 2 of the said
Office Memorandum details the circumstances under which the candidature of an officer may be
scrutinized for compulsory retirement.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that the guidelines contained in the Office Memorandum
dated 11.09.2015 were also violated while considering his case for compulsory retirement by the
Review Committee.

11. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Commissioner
of Income Tax on the basis of merit-cum-seniority vide order dated 16.09.2015. His promotion
itself is sufficient to indicate that his merit was beyond doubt. Prior to his promotion, vigilance
clearance was granted and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was
duly scrutinized by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and only thereafter the
petitioner was promoted. As such, there was no adverse material available before the Review
Committee to justify recommending compulsory retirement.

12. It has also been submitted that the remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports of
the petitioner consistently indicate that he was considered an officer of outstanding category, whose
integrity was beyond doubt and whose general reputation was appreciated at various levels.

13. It has been submitted that a combined reading of the Office Memorandum dated
10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and 11.09.2015 provides that screening under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is to
be undertaken only in cases where the services of an officer are no longer useful to the general
administration and for the purpose of weeding out dead wood. For arriving at such a conclusion,
due regard must be given to the entire service record of the officer. Adverse material prior to
promotion loses its significance and greater weightage is required to be given to the service record
2 All. Alok Kumar Mitra Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1425
post-promotion. It has further been submitted that if an officer is promoted despite adverse entries,
such promotion operates in his favour and compulsory retirement in such circumstances cannot be
used as a tool for punishment.

14. It is further submitted that after the petitioner s promotion to the post of Commissioner of
Income Tax, his services were placed on deputation as Chief Executive Officer of the State Agency
for Comprehensive Health and Integrated Services, where he remained posted in that capacity up to
November 2017. During the period of deputation, his Annual Confidential Reports indicate that he
was consistently graded as an outstanding officer.

15. On the contrary, the respondents, while denying the claims of the petitioner, have drawn
attention to the minutes of the Review Committee, which form the sole basis for recommending
compulsory retirement of the petitioner, as indicated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed
along with the application for dismissal of the Original Application No.332/00450/2019.

16. It has been submitted that the Review Committee took into consideration the entire service
record of the officer including his Annual Confidential Reports (ACR)/Annual Performance
Appraisal Reports (APAR) and the charge sheets issued against the petitioner and only after
recording its satisfaction recommended the petitioner s compulsory retirement.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the Representation
Committee duly considered the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the various Office Memoranda against the order of compulsory retirement
dated 10.06.2019. The Committee examined the entire service record of the petitioner and held that
there was no illegality in the order of compulsory retirement. While taking the decision, the Office
Memoranda issued from time to time on the subject were duly considered and after following the
prescribed procedure of law, the petitioner was compulsorily retired.

18. With regard to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no approval from the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was obtained, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that at the time of joining government service the petitioner was appointed by the
President. His promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade was also made under the orders of the
President after empanelment by the ACC. This does not mean that the ACC is the appointing
authority; rather, the appointing authority of the petitioner continues to be the President. Thus, it
has been argued that the petitioner s claim that he was not compulsorily retired after obtaining
approval from the competent authority is misconceived.

19. In rejoinder submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Review
Committee relied upon adverse material which, in fact, did not exist. In particular, the charge sheet
dated 15.07.2013 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was quashed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, vide judgment and order dated 09.04.2018
passed in Original Application No.332/00353/2013. The said order attained finality and was
accepted by the department itself.
1426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. It has been submitted that once the charge sheet was quashed, the allegations contained
therein could not have been taken into consideration by the Review Committee for forming an
adverse opinion against the petitioner and could not have been made the basis for action under
Fundamental Rule 56(j).

21. To sum up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted:

(i) The petitioner has been targeted and the order of compulsory retirement has been
passed in an arbitrary manner, inasmuch as when the department failed to take any action in the
disciplinary proceedings, it adopted the course of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule
56(j) and compulsorily retired the petitioner.

(ii) The decision to invoke Fundamental Rule 56(j) against the petitioner was not taken in
public interest. The Hon ble Supreme Court, in S. Ram Chandra Raju vs. State of Orissa
reported in (1994) 3 SCC 424, explained the expression public interest to mean that the conduct
and reputation of an officer must be such that his continuance in service would be a menace to
public service and injurious to public interest. No such pleading has been made by the respondents
in the counter affidavit. The Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another vs.
Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported in (1999) 1 SCC 529; Union of India vs. Col. J. N. Sinha
reported in (1970) 2 SCC 458; and Gian Singh Mann vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
reported in (1980) 4 SCC 266, has further explained the expression public interest in the context of
compulsory retirement to refer to cases where the interest of public administration requires the
retirement of a government servant who, with the passage of time, has prematurely ceased to
possess the standard of efficiency and utility expected in government service.

(iii) The order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 is based upon non-existent
material and the opinion of the Review Committee cannot supersede the satisfaction of the
appointing authority.

(iv) The opinion to compulsorily retire the applicant was formed by the Review
Committee, however, the approval of the prescribed Appropriate Authority i.e.,the Appointments
Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was not obtained. Since the petitioner is an ACC appointee, such
approval was mandatory under Fundamental Rule 56(j). Consequently, the opinion was not formed
by the appropriate authority, rendering the action illegal.

(v) The Office Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and 11.09.2015 mandate
that an officer may be considered for screening only at the age of 50/55 years. For consideration at
any other age, the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam reported in
(1977) 4 SCC 345 (paragraph 29) has held that there must be fresh or new material (post 50 years)
relating to integrity. By operation of law and as per the mandatory scheme of Fundamental Rule
56(j), as clarified by the Hon ble Supreme Court in various decisions, the fact that the petitioner
continued in service till the age of 52.5 years clearly establishes that he had successfully cleared the
mandatory screening at the age of 50 years, which is necessarily undertaken for all government
servants as a statutory requirement.
2 All. Alok Kumar Mitra Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1427

(vi) While passing the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023, the learned Tribunal did not
return any finding on the issues raised by the petitioner. Instead, it relied upon the judgment in
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and another passed by the Hon ble High Court on
31.05.2022 in Writ-A No.24856 of 2020, which was subsequently set aside by the Hon ble
Supreme Court on 03.03.2023 in Civil Appeal No.6161 of 2022. Thus, the judgment of the learned
Tribunal is based upon a decision that stands overruled by the Hon ble Supreme Court.

(vii) The impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 lacks approval of
the Appropriate Authority , as defined in Note-1 to Fundamental Rule 56(j). On this ground alone,
the order of compulsory retirement is void ab initio and in any case, deserves to be quashed as
being vitiated by legal malice.

22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to examine the decision taken by
the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner in the light of the statutory provisions
governing compulsory retirement of a Government servant.

23. Fundamental Rule 56(j) is reproduced herein below :

CHAPTER IX

RETIREMENT

Fundamental Rule 56(a) .

(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is
of the opinion that it is in the public interests so to do, have the absolute right to retire any
Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months'
pay and allowances in lieu of such notice;

(1) If he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or
temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after
he has attained the age of 50 years;

(ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in
clause (c), who entered Government service on or before the 23rd July, 1966.

(j) (i) If on a review of the case either on a representation from the Government servant
retired prematurely or otherwise, it is decided to reinstate the Government servant in service, the
authority ordering reinstatement may regulate the intervening period between the date of
premature retirement and the date of reinstatement by the grant of leave of the kind due and
admissible, including extraordinary leave, or by treating it as dies non depending upon the facts
and circumstances of the case:
1428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided that the intervening period shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all
purposes including pay and allowances, if it is specifically held by the authority ordering
reinstatement that the premature retirement was itself not justified in the circumstances of the case,
or, if the order of premature retirement is set aside by a Court of Law.

(ii) Where the order of premature retirement is set aside by a Court of Law with specific
directions in regard to regulation of the period between the date of premature retirement and the
date of reinstatement and no further appeal is proposed to be filed, the aforesaid period shall be
regulated in accordance with the directions of the court."

24. Fundamental Rule 56(j) provides that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to
compulsorily retire a government servant. The term Appropriate Authority has been defined as the
authority which has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service. The Office
Memorandum dated 30.05.2016, annexed as Annexure No.17 to the writ petition, issued under the
subject Strengthening of Administration-Periodical Review clarifies that under Fundamental Rule
56(j), the Appropriate Authority is the authority competent to make substantive appointments. The
Office Memorandum dated 30.05.2016 is reproduced herein below :

"DoP&T vide their O.M. dated 11.09.2015 has directed all the Ministries/Departments to
conduct periodical review inder FR 56 (j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules to ascertain
whether the Government servant should be retained in service or retired from Services in the
Public interest.

1. FR 56 (j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provide as under :

FR 56 (j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority
shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire
any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three
months" pay and allowances in lieu of such notice;

(i) If he is, in Group A or Group B service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or
temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, he
has attained the age of 50 years.

(ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years.

Under FR 56, the "Appropriate Authority" has been defined as the authority which has
the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service."

25. It is not disputed that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the President and the
order of compulsory retirement has been issued by the President. Hence, the claim of the petitioner
that no approval was taken from the competent authority before passing the order of compulsory
retirement, is misconceived, as the President, being the appointing authority of the petitioner, has
passed the order dated 10.06.2019.
2 All. Alok Kumar Mitra Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1429

26. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that approval of the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was required before passing the order of
compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 is misconceived, as there is no such requirement stipulated
in the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015 regarding approval of the ACC.

27. The contention of the petitioner that the procedure prescribed under the Office
Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and 11.09.2015 has not been followed is also
misconceived. The Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015, annexed as Annexure No.16 to the writ
petition, provides in paragraph 3 that during every review, the entire service record of the
concerned officer is required to be considered and the review should not be confined merely to the
ACRs/APARs.

28. Paragraph 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015 further provides that the
Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling Authorities shall constitute Review Committees consisting of
two members at the appropriate level. It also stipulates that in the case of officers holding Group A
posts, the Review Committee may be headed by the Secretary of the concerned
Ministry/Department, being the Cadre Controlling Authority, particularly in respect of ACC
appointees. In the present case, the Review Committee which considered the petitioner s case for
compulsory retirement was a two member committee headed by the Secretary (Revenue) and
another member who was Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes in conformity with the
requirements of paragraph 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015 governing the process of
compulsory retirement. The Review Committee was assisted by Internal Committee members
comprising of Pr. DGIT (HRD) as Chairperson, ADG (HRD-1 and ADG (Vig)-1 as member as
required Paragraph 9 of Circular dated 11.09.2015. The Review Committee considered the entire
service record of the petitioner including his ACRs/APARs, charge memos communicated as well
as uncommunicated remarks, disciplinary cases etc. and recommended the compulsory retirement
of petitioner which was accepted by the Appropriate Authority i.e. the President.

29. The contention of the petitioner that he has been targeted and victimized while passing the
order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 is also misconceived. While undertaking the
exercise of compulsory retirement, action was taken against 67 officers along with the petitioner by
the Union of India. It is, therefore, not a case where the petitioner alone was singled out for such
action. The due process was followed, the matter was initially examined by the Review Committee,
whose recommendation was considered and accepted by the Appointing Authority and thereafter
the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken. The matter was again examined by the
Representation Committee constituted by the Cabinet Secretary comprising of officers of the level
of Secretary to Government of India, an officer of the level of Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary to
the Government of India and one Officer nominated from the Cadre-Controlling Authority of the
officer concerned, which affirmed the order of compulsory retirement and rejected the petitioner s
representation. The O. M. No.25013/01/2013-Estt. A-IV dated 01.03.2016 provides for the
composition of Representation Committee which was duly adhered to while constituting the
Representation Committee in the case of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said
that any malice was harboured against the petitioner. The allegation of arbitrariness is also
misconceived, as the order of compulsory retirement was passed after following the due procedure
1430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prescribed under the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015 and in accordance with the statutory
requirements contained in Fundamental Rule 56(j).

30. With regard to the satisfaction recorded by the Review Committee, we are of the opinion
that as per the details contained in paragraph 7 of the written statement/counter affidavit filed
before the learned Tribunal by the Union of India, which sets out the minutes of the decisionmaking process of the Review Committee, it cannot be said that the Review Committee arrived at
its decision without any material basis. The Review Committee duly recorded its satisfaction before
recommending the petitioner s compulsory retirement. The minutes of the Review Committee, as
contained in paragraph 7 of the written counter affidavit, are reproduced herein below:

"Para-7 - At the outset it is submitted that the Review Committee had passed a reasoned
order after examining the entire service records of the Applicant. The Committee took note of the
following facts and passed its reasoned order:

(i) On perusal of File F. No. DGIT(V)/EZ/COM/62/03 it was seen that a complaint was
processed against the Applicant and which resulted in issuance of a charge sheet
(DGIT(V)/DP/483/2013) dated 15.07.2013 for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules.
The Applicant was charged with carrying out a shoddy investigation in Tax Evasion Petition (TEP)
relating to Sahara Group, while functioning as DDIT (inv. II), Lucknow. The Applicant was
charged with sending a report to Higher Authorities even when the Inquiries were not concluded)
The said report dated 30.05.2002 could have resulted in undue benefit to Sahara Group as the
applicant had given a clean chit to the group. The investigation conducted by the Dept. showed that
the officer had handled TEP in a shoddy manner and had not completed the inquiries diligently.
However, the charge sheet was later quashed by CAT, Lucknow bench on technical grounds such
as delay in processing the case. The manner in which the TEPS were taken up on priority by the
Applicant raises suspicions about the whole episode. Thus, the committee was of the view that
integrity of Shri Alok Kumar Mitra is doubtful.

(ii) The perusal of file F. No.DGIT(V)/NZ/COM/64/03 shows that a complaint received
on 24.02.2003 from Ms. Rajlakshmi Verma, MLA, U.P. against Shri Alok Kumar Mitra, the then
DDIT (Inv.), Lucknow and another officer was processed. It was alleged in the complaint that the
applicant, the then Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Lucknow and another officer Ms. Archana
Chaudhary, the then Addl. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Lucknow had misused their office and had
been handling files in an improper manner. Allegations of lavish holidays abroad, possession of
Benami properties in NOIDA/Delhi and illegal withdrawals from secret funds of Search Wing had
been made in the complaint. It was alleged that the applicant and Ms. Chaudhary had managed
their posting at Lucknow for more than nine years continuously. Hon'ble MLA also forwarded a
report of the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kanpur dated 10/11/12.2002, addressed to DGIT(Inv.),
North, Lucknow, wherein findings of both these officers of having misused their office were
recorded.

(iii) The Review Committee had further noted that Six Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) cases,
which were handled by these officers, were examined by the Department. In its report dated
10/11.12.2002, DIT (Inv.), Kanpur had stated that the TEPs in these six cases were not even
2 All. Alok Kumar Mitra Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1431
entered in the Register and nor were forwarded to the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Kanpur for
categorisation as was required at that time. The TEPs in these six cases were taken up for enquiry
out of turn while a large number of TEPs were pending unattended in the office of the Addl. DIT
(Inv.), Lucknow for a long time at that moment. The report categorically pointed out the possibility
of creating of these TEPS in the office of the Addl. DIT (Inv.), Lucknow with some ulterior motives.
The manner in which the TEPs were dealt with clearly show malafide intention on the part of these
two officers. Since both these officers were Group-A officers, DIT (Inv.) recommended to make a
reference to the DIT (Vig.) for taking necessary action at its end.

(iv) The DIT(Vig.), North & Dy. CVO, New Delhi, furnished a report to DGIT (Vig.) vide
letter dated 23.09.2002 forwarded by Shri Ravi Gautam, the then Minister U.P. and complaint
dated Nil by Mrs. Rajlakshmi Verma the then MLA UP. The allegations in the first complaint were
found general in nature and found to be based on hearsay. Regarding the second complaint, the
records of the TEPs were requisitioned and an inspection thereof indicated serious irregularities in
handling of the said TEPS, which are listed as under :

(a) Failed to enter these TEPs in the TEP Register in complete defiance of the prescribed
procedure/guidelines and also did not report these TEPS in the Prescribed format in the monthly
report. Thus sought to hide the existence of these TEPs from higher authorities/CBDT;

(b) Issuance of inquiry letter/notice u/s 133(6), 135 and 136 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
without seeking approval of the competent authority in blatant contravention of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.

(c) Directing the Assessee for personal appearance which was not required;

(d) Not processing the complaints of alleged undisclosed black money under the
appropriate section of the IT Act or seeking the direction or guidance of the superior authority;

(e) Instead of conducting enquiry in secretive manner to unearth black money
deliberately made the assessee aware of the inquiry with a malafide intention;

(f) Not taking any action for a considerable time after having received all the requisite
information.

(v) Accordingly, the case was referred to CVC for its first stage advice on 13.07.2004
with a recommendation for initiation of major penalty proceedings against both these officers. The
CVC, vide OM dated 28.07.2004, advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against the
applicant and Ms. Chaudhary and also nominated Inquiry Officer in the case.

(vi) During that time, CBDT vide order dated 06.05.2004 transferred the jurisdiction of
the cases pertaining to CCIT, Lucknow Charge to DIT(Vig.), East. Therefore, DIT(Vig), North
recommended to delink both the complaints and open a new file for further investigation of the
complaint of Mrs. Rajlakshmi Varma, the then MLA UP by DIT(Vig.), East who then held
Jurisdiction over the case. In light of the fresh facts gathered in the subsequent investigation, the
1432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Minister of State for Finance (Revenue) gave approval to refer the case for reconsideration to the
CVC with the recommendation for closure of the case against the applicant and for taking
administrative action against the other officer. The complaint against the officer was closed on
09.05.2008 as per CVC'S OM No.004/ITX/086-65406 dated 17.08.2007.

(vii) Though the complaint was closed the committee noted that as per DOPT OM
No.25013/01/2013-Estt. A-IV dated 11.09.2015 while considering the integrity of an employee, the
action or decision taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board, complaints made
against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may be sufficient evidence to
initiate departmental proceedings, may be taken into account. The committee noted that though the
complaint was closed on the grounds that though the complaint did not specifically mention
demand for illegal gratification and the applicant was transferred out before the finalisation of the
TEP cases, the manner in which the TEPS were taken up on priority raises suspicions about the
whole episode

(viii) The committee also examined the file F. No.DGIT (V)/NZ/VCR/01/18 wherein a
complaint dated 24.01.2011 made by Shri Zubair, Partner M/s Metro Cargo Carriers, Lucknow,
against the applicant, Addl. CIT, Lucknow and Ms. Ranu Biswas, DCIT, Lucknow was processed.
It was alleged that the assessment was getting barred on 31.12.2010 but Ms. Ranu Biswas obtained
signatures of his Advocate Shri K.S. Rastogi on a bank acknowledgement slip on 21.12.2010. It was
alleged that Ms. Ranu Biswas demanded Rs.50 lacs to complete the case of without any tax
demand. The complainants advocate was shown a copy of the unsigned assessment order
mentioning an addition of Rs.38.06 crores. It was also alleged that Ms. Ranu Biswas conveyed the
same to the complainant by using the mobile phone of the advocate Shri K.S. Rastogi. It was
alleged that when the complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs.50 lacs Ms. Ranu Biswas
offered that this amount could be split in two Installments. When the assessee expressed his
inability to pay even in two installments. Ms. Ranu Biswas advised the advocate to file a
rectification application, which she will accept in case the complainant is able to pay.

(ix) An inspection of the file was done by Addl. CIT, Range 5, who commented adversely
about the quality of the order. It was noted that the addition made were legally untenable, poorly
investigated and did not deal with the assessee's submissions. It was found that the additions made
by Ms. Ranu Biswas were based on incomplete investigation. It was also noted that during
appellate proceedings, the case was remanded to the AO for verification and the AO conducted
necessary enquiries and verified the claims of the assessee and found the same in order as per the
evidences and books of account. Thus the allegation regarding high pitched assessments in this
case, without any valid reasons, was found to be true. Both the above noted additions have been
deleted by CIT(A) and ITAT as the additions were found to be not sustainable as per law.

(x) It was also noted that the matter was brought to the notice of the Addl. CIT being the
applicant, who failed to supervise the AO in ensuring proper investigation and appreciation of
facts and evidences filed by the assessee. It was held that the Applicant failed in his supervisory
duty. The matter was referred to CVC and no action has been recommended by the CVC in their
advice tendered vide CVC OM No.018/ITX/041-415794 dated 09.04.2019.
2 All. Alok Kumar Mitra Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1433

(xi) The committee was of the view that when an irregularity of his subordinate was
brought to the notice of the applicant, it was his responsibility to ensure that the assessment order
was passed as per the provisions of IT Act.

(xii) The Committee also noted that the applicant failed to act on a complaint of bribery
against his subordinate Ms. Ranu Biswas which resulted in a high-pitched assessment order being
passed and caused undue harassment to the taxpayer. Thus, the applicant proved to be an
ineffective supervisory officer and the complaint raises serious doubts about his integrity. The
committee observed that even though the disciplinary proceedings and the complaints against the
applicant have been closed, the facts on record raise serious doubts about his integrity. Further he
has also proved to be ineffective as brought out by his inaction in the complaint of bribery against
Ms. Ranu Biswas,"

31. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das vs. District Medical Officer reported in (1992) 2
SCC 299, Hon ble Supreme Court summarized the principles governing compulsory retirement.
The same are recorded in Paragraph 34 of the judgment, which is reproduced herein below :

34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

(1) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any
suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the
public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective
satisfaction of the government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory
retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court
or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are
satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is
arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given
material, in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.

(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to
consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching
more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so
considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both
favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the
adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit
(selection) and not upon seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on
the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into
consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.
1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has
been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above."

32. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet could not have
been taken into consideration by the Review Committee as it had been quashed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 09.04.2018 passed in
Original Application No.332/00353/2013, is also misconceived.