November 29, 2021

Cat justifies Modi Government Decision to Retirement of Incompetent Officers


Amar Ujala Bureau, New Delhi
Updated Thu, 17 Dec 2020 04:22 AM IST

Symbolic picture
– Photo: Social Media

Read Amar Ujala e-paper
anywhere anytime.

*Yearly subscription for just ₹299 Limited Period Offer. HURRY UP!

Listen to the news

CAT has rightly and legitimately called the bold move of the central government, in which last year, compulsory retirement was given to the top officials associated with tax management. Along with this, CAT also rejected the petition filed by then Income Tax Commissioner Pramod Kumar Bajaj against this decision. Bajaj was one of the 85 officers to be given mandatory retirement by the Union Government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the Basic Rule 56 (J) of the Central Service.

The Principal Bench headed by Justice L. Narasimha Reddy of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) gave its decision through video conferencing. Apart from Justice Reddy, the bench with Aradhana Johri as a member said, “We are unable to find any reason for hearing this petition and are rejecting it.”

“We agree with the government’s argument that the scope of intervention in the order passed to implement 56 (J) is very limited.” The bench made a harsh remark in front of the complainant PK Bajaj about him saying that the record of the petitioner itself reveals everything and it was not in the interest of the department to continue in the service for long, as the private life of the petitioner was not only extraordinary, but The reputation of the department was also being damaged. In such a situation, which the petitioner had decided for himself, the government and the CBDT have no other option except Rule 56 (j).

Explain that under Basic Rule 56 (J), an officer working in any central service can be retired prematurely from the job. The Principal Bench also took cognizance of the fact that the Income Tax Department had, through a comprehensive campaign in 2019, identified those officers who were not in the public interest to continue in office. The bench said, Bajaj’s name was among the 15 officers identified during this period. The bench also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the Central Government v. Dulal Dutt (1993) case.

There were allegations from corruption to Ayyashi on Bajaj
PK Bajaj had charges ranging from corruption to Ayyashi. His ex-wife Sapna accused him of marrying Renu and then Rakhi without divorcing her. At the same time, there was also evidence of Bajaj raising disproportionate assets. Bajaj bought a flat in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, which was later handed over to his wife as compensation. But its information was not given to the department under the rules.

CAT has rightly and legitimately called the bold move of the central government, in which last year, compulsory retirement was given to the top officials associated with tax management. Along with this, CAT also rejected the petition filed by then Income Tax Commissioner Pramod Kumar Bajaj against this decision. Bajaj was one of the 85 officers to be given mandatory retirement by the Union Government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the Basic Rule 56 (J) of the Central Service.

The Principal Bench headed by Justice L. Narasimha Reddy of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) gave its decision through video conferencing. Apart from Justice Reddy, the bench with Aradhana Johri as a member said, “We are unable to find any reason for hearing this petition and are rejecting it.”

“We agree with the government’s argument that the scope of intervention in the order passed to implement 56 (J) is very limited.” The bench made a harsh remark in front of the complainant PK Bajaj about him saying that the record of the petitioner itself reveals everything and it was not in the interest of the department to continue in the service for long, as the private life of the petitioner was not only extraordinary, but The reputation of the department was also being damaged. In such a situation, which the petitioner had decided for himself, the government and the CBDT have no other option except Rule 56 (j).

Explain that under Basic Rule 56 (J), an officer working in any central service can be retired prematurely from the job. The Principal Bench also took cognizance of the fact that the Income Tax Department had, through a comprehensive campaign in 2019, identified those officers who were not in the public interest to continue in office. The bench said, Bajaj’s name was among the 15 officers identified during this period. The bench also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the Central Government v. Dulal Dutt (1993) case.

There were allegations from corruption to Ayyashi on Bajaj
PK Bajaj had charges ranging from corruption to Ayyashi. His ex-wife Sapna accused him of marrying Renu and then Rakhi without divorcing her. At the same time, there was also evidence of Bajaj raising disproportionate assets. Bajaj bought a flat in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, which was later handed over to his wife as compensation. But its information was not given to the department under the rules.


www.amarujala.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *