SG
13th July
Service Tax Negative List e'book
20th June
Know who is a "Public Servant"
<Cross refer > I T Act, et al
(for kowing what follows)
Difference between the government and public servants ? - Yahoo ...
Jun 15, 2010 – Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, defines thepublic servant as under:- i) Any person in the service or pay of the Government or ...
definition of public servant - Indian Kanoon
indiankanoon.org/search/?...definition%20of%20public%20servantApplicant is a Public Servant. The learned Judge has misconstrued and misapplied the principle and the definition ... alia, envisages widening the scope of the ...
Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Indian Kanoon
indiankanoon.org/doc/1052367/Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860. 21. " Public servant".-- The words" public servant" denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter ...
Who is “Public servant” in India | Be Informed
033kolkata.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-is-public-servant-in-india.htmlApr 8, 2011 – “Public servant” in India means a person who is or was at any time: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) a Minister; (c) a Member of Parliament; (d) Judges ...
June 10, 2013
Update
itatonline
An Echo from the HC since reported here >
Fateh Chand Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
Shock & Anguish expressed at mal-administration by AO & CIT. CBDT....
XCerpts
<The income tax authorities are required to administer the Act. The right to
administer, cannot obviously include the right to mal-administer. Thus, we find no words to
express anguish as what kind of governance it had been.>
<................. Reasons introduce
clarity in an order. Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it
becomes lifeless. (
See Raj Kishore Jha Versus State of Bihar and others, AIR 2003 SC
4664).
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in
Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971(1) All. E.R. 1148) observed: "The giving ofreasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.">
< Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between
the mind of the decision - taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the " inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or
quasi-judicial performance.” >@Mute spectator
One having no clue could only be curious to know what it is meant to say ! Instead, - should not the white (black?)-collared economists at large, as is widely being advocated for, come out with truly feasible and pragmatic measures. A point crying for upfront poser is, - it is not so much its buying power but is the money circulation itself that should be checked.
In the changed circumstances, it is not the party or ministry that is answerable; but who must be regarded to be answerable is every one of the empowered authorities, entrusted with the duties and responsibilities as a 'public servant' , directly responsible to implement and enforce what any ‘rule of law’ in its profound sense provides or mandates.
Digressing for a while, for instance, in the income-tax regime, who must be questioned for eliciting an upright answer, is the assessing officer. being the authority at whose level respect for the law, through implementation /enforcement of any statutory provision, both in its letter and spirit, is expected to begin. What inevitably to be asked is, - in case of any failure on his part to do so, is it not he, -any erring officer, who must be visited with appropriate personal action. For, immunity or protection from personal action could, after all, be rightly claimed only if has acted “in performance of his duties”- not if he has failed to so perform! For an appreciation in proper light, anyone so minded may have to go through the material galore available on websites , on the prevailing tragic state of affairs - e.g. in the realm of 'TDS' regime.
Thoughts intended to be shared with a view to provoking like-minded others to do likewise , for ideas aimed at betterment of the law and order scenario.
(Unedited / not elaborated- leaving it for anyone truly interested to do so)
No comments:
Post a Comment