TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (5) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, on 2nd April, 1956, reducing the appellant in rank from the post of an Income-tax Officer to that of an Income-tax Inspector, was void and inoperative. It appears that the appellant was in service upto 30th April 1958, when he was prematurely retired. The appellant also claimed Rs. 20,904/-as arrears of salary, but he reduced this claim to Rs. 16,561.29. The appellant was originally appointed on 22nd November 1922, as Lower Division Clerk, and, thereafter, promoted as Income-tax Inspector in 1942. He was promoted to the post of Income-tax Officer in 1945. His case was that he had worked to the entire satisfaction of his immediate superior officers and higher authorities and had earned a numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that there had been an enquiry in 1949, by Shri A. R. Sachdeva, Asstt. Inspecting Commissioner, into some of the matters mentioned in the charges, and about others in 1952 by Shri R. N. Srivastava, another Inspecting Commissioner, and that the appellant had been exonerated of the allegations and imputations made against him on each occasion. One of his defences was that a fresh enquiry into the same charges was not permissible under the Departmental rules and was also barred by rules of natural justice. He also complained of failure to give him opportunity to produce nine witnesses in his defence with some documents. It is evident that the questions raised by the appellant depended on findings of fact. All relevant facts had been examine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at no charge was framed as a result of any previous enquiry. Therefore, the two authorities cited: The State of Assam & Anr. v. J. N. Roy Biswas, and R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, do not help the appellant. If an inquiry is held, at a particular stage, possibly to determine whether regular proceedings should be drawn up or started, it does not debar a departmental trial. That was the nature of the previous enquiries. It appears that it is only after the appellant's activities had become more notorious that further enquiry was undertaken and regular charges framed. It is possible that the appellant may have been emboldened by the failure of officers to report earlier that charges should be framed and tried. In any case, this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Counsel for the appellant has handed over a very carefully and laboriously prepared statement of facts of the case to show us that the evidence did not support the charges levelled against the appellant. It was also submitted that, apart from the charges relating to partnership in the Gautam Cycle Mart, no other charge was found substantiated. Furthermore, it was submitted that, after the inquiring officer had found that the Gautam Cycle Mart was started in 1942 and not in 1939, the appellant should have been given a further opportunity to meet a new case. No rule was cited in support of such a technical objection to the nature of the charge which would cover the starting of the Gautam Cycle Mart at any time subsequent to 1939 also. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiry. But it does not exceed its jurisdiction by basing its decision upon an incorrect determination of any question that it is empowered or required (i.e.) has jurisdiction to determine". After citing a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn. Vol. 11, page 59, this Court held (at p. 836): The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether it be right or wrong. An error of law or fact committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot, in general, be impeached otherwise than on appeal unless the erroneous determination relates to a mauer on which the jurisdiction of that body depends. These princi ples govern not onnly the findings of inferior courts stricto strictio also the findings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fitness of the case for appeal to this Court observed that questions had been attempted to be raised before it in asking for certification which had not been argued at the time when the first appeal was heard by the High Court. We find that one of the learned Judges who dismissed the application for a certificate of fitness of the case had also heard the arguments in the first appeal. There is no affidavit before us that any particular points argued before the Division Bench had not been referred to or dealt with by the Bench. Moreover, the Division Bench had probably not dealt with all arguments on questions of fact because it did not consider it necessary to do so. After all, it was not hearing an appeal against the findings of the depar....