Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 977 1999 SLD 977 1999 PLC 573
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 434(L) of 1997, decision dated: 6-01-1998.
NASIM SABIR SYED AND MUHAMMAD HAYATULLAH KHAN SUMBAL, MEMBERS

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others

Law:

Section:

Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973-------Rr. 4, 5 & 6---Major penalty---Imposition---Civil servant working as Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was proceeded against under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and major penalty of reduction to lower post of Income-tax Officer B-16 from that of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax B-17, was imposed upon him on allegations of "misconduct", "inefficiency" and "corruption" after holding inquiry against him---Case against civil servant was that he, as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, had accepted purchase price in respect of shop as shown by assessee in his wealth statement which according to Inquiry Officer and according to assessment made by successor officer was less according to location of shop---Further allegation was that by doing so, civil servant had caused substantial loss to revenue which act of civil servant amounted to "misconduct", "inefficiency" and "corruption"---Civil servant had enough evidence to show that value declared by assessee as per wealth statement which was almost two and half times of that price of shop declared in registered deed, was quite reasonable---Civil servant even went to the extent to confront Department to bring forth any case in the area in which value of such-like shop had been assessed at a higher figure than that accepted by him in that area---Inference by Department that by accepting declared value, officer must have indulged in corruption, was rather far­fetched especially when acceptance of value of shop as per wealth statement had been made by civil servant in good faith which had protection of S. 162 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Inquiry Officer had been oblivious of certain important facts in the case---Most important thing was the recovery of legitimate State Revenue by civil servant without harassing the assessee in any way---Other officer who had passed final order under S. 65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was certainly guilty of harassing assessee as he assessed value of shop extremely high which was not based on any material fact--­Conclusion of Inquiry Officer, in circumstances, did not indicate any…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492