9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s petitioner guilty cannot be said to be stigmatic as it is only a prima facie opinion and the finding of guilt has to be returned only after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Impugned ‘prima facie opinion’ is clarified to the aforesaid extent while making it clear that jurisdiction of respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings shall be confined to the Show-Cause Notice and so, petitioner cannot be called upon to give his response in respect of applicability of the provisions of Income Tax Act, FEMA, Benami Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, etc.. - petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 73/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2018 - MR. SUNIL GAUR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate Respondents Through: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of unaccounted funds and abetting in arrangement of false Valuation Reports. 2. Petitioner vide Reply of 27th March, 2017 (Annexure-E colly.) had admitted that he was in touch with S.K. Jain/V.K. Jain in professional capacity, but denied his involvement in the alleged transactions while asserting that the nature of alleged allegations are vague and baseless. According to petitioner s counsel, not even a single piece of credible evidence or document is forthcoming to establish petitioner s complicity in the transactions in question. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submits that the prima facie opinion discloses utter non-application of mind as it simply reproduces the contents of the SFIO report and no subjective satisfactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any tangible evidence, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner is wholly unjustified. It is further pointed out by petitioner s counsel that there is no independent application of mind by first respondent on the Report (Annexure-B) as in paragraph No.8.16 of the impugned prima facie opinion , the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded under the assumption that it has to necessarily make out a disciplinary case against petitioner in view of SFIO s report and such opinion cannot be sustained in view of the dictum of Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Chauhan (supra). Attention of this Court is drawn to respondents Communication of 7th July, 2017 (Annexure A-1 to application for interim relief) which calls upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was under compulsion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner due to Reminder by SFIO. Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon (supra) has reiterated that in cases having serious financial impact, the courts ought to be extremely circumspect in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against petitioner and his Reply to it, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner is well justified. Impugned prima facie opinion though holds petitioner guilty cannot be said to be stigmatic as it is only a prima facie opinion and the finding of guilt has to be returned only after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Impugned pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
