UOI Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi v. Govind Manish

order."

File was again sent on 01.04.2008 seeking concurrence of the Department on legal affairs for filing writ petition in the following manner: "In its advice dated 02.04.2008, the Deptt. of Legal Affairs has opined that "The opinion of the Ministry given at pp.16 on 16.11.2007 stands good. It does not require any modification. If the department wants to file writ petition, it may do so at its own risk and cost as the success in the writ petition is in remote. Department should defend the contempt petition properly."

¶17Notwithstanding, categorical opinion of the Department of Legal Affairs that it was not a fit case for filing the writ petition, the petitioner went ahead and filed the instant writ petition. Not that we are influenced by the remarks of the Department of Legal

Affairs. For this reason, we have referred to these remarks only after considering the matters ourselves on its own merits. Reason for quoting the aforesaid opinion of the Department of Legal Affairs is that even when there are instructions that normally the Department should concede to such legal advice and should not challenge the orders by filing frivolous petitions/appeals, many times such advice is not heeded to. This tendency of filing appeals till the highest Court by the Government Department, and in turn becoming biggest litigant in this country, is one of the reasons clogging judicial systems with huge pendency.

¶18Under these circumstances while dismissing the writ petition, we are constrained to impose compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE April 17, 2009. pmc

Reportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 2893 of 2008 Reserved on : April 02, 2009. % Pronounced on: April 17, 2009. Union of India . . . Petitioner through : Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate VERSUS Shri Govind Manish . . . Respondent through Mr. Devesh Singh, Advocate CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. The respondent herein is a member of Indian Revenue Services of 1994 batch. In the year 2003, he was posted in Delhi as Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). It is the practice in the Income Tax Department to make general transfers normally in the months of April/May every year. Options are also invited from the officers if they are having any preferred stations in mind where they 2. want to seek transfer. The respondent herein made a request that he may be considered for transfer and submitted his option from Delhi region to Mumbai region. 3. It is matter of common knowledge that certain postings, in all Government Departments, are "prized" postings for obvious reasons. Therefore, many officers try their best to get posting to such places. It is more true in respect of Income Tax/ Revenue Department. It is also a matter of common knowledge that it gives rise to, at times, sharp practices being adopted by certain officials. At that time, many persons become "active" and try to take advantage of the situation. That is unfortunate. But, it happens. During the year 2003 as well, a racket indulging in such practices was busted by the CBI. One Shri A Krishnamurthy, a practicing Chartered Accountant in Chennai boasted of his "contacts" in right places to get people transferred to the destination of their choice. He approached via his contacts Mr. C.R. Perumalsamy alias Babu, Ist P.A. to Shri G.N. Ramachandran, the then Minister of State of Finance (Revenue), Government of India. On receipt of an information that the game of "influence" was going on in this behalf, the CBI taped the phones of Mr. A Krishnamurthy, Babu and others. After investigating into the matter, conducting preliminary inquiry and collecting evidence, the CBI submitted its report along with the material to the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). In these conversations, tape-recorded by the CBI, it was found that Mr. A. Krishnamurthy had approached Babu seeking transfer of various persons for consideration. The CVC examined the said material and advised for issuance of charge-sheets for major penalty proceedings against certain employees. In this list of persons against whom disciplinary proceedings were sought to be initiated, the respondent was also included. Accordingly, Memo/charge sheet dated 7/8.09.2005 was served upon the respondent under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Allegation against him was that he had agreed to pay Rs.6 lakhs to Babu towards bribe for ensuring the transfer through Shri A. Krishnamurthy. Imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the said charge with which we are concerned, was as under: "that the said Sh. Govind Manish, while posed (sic. posted) as Dy. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi, in the year 2003, fialed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Govt. servant, by way of approaching Sh. A. Krishnamurthy, a practicing chartered accountant in Chennai in the matter pertaining to his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai who on his behalf approached his contact Sh. R. Perumalsamy @ Babu, 1st P.A. to Sh. G.N. Ramachandran, the then Minister of State of Finance (Revenue), Govt. of India and on the demand of Sh. R. Perumalsamy @ Babu, he agreed to pay Rs.6 lacs to Sh. Babu towards bribe for ensuring his transfer through above Sh. A. Krishnamurthy. (emphasis supplied) Para 2-5 of statement of Imputation of misconduct or misbehavior