it2025_00324 — In the present case of allegation of possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income against an IRS Officer, value to be accorded to opinion of CVC and the Competent Authorities' decision is final and binding. In the present case of IRS Officer who is punished by the authorities, the sanction awarded by Finance Minister is valid

In the present case of allegation of possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income against an IRS Officer, value to be accorded to opinion of CVC and the Competent Authorities' decision is final and binding. In the present case of IRS Officer who is punished by the authorities, the sanction awarded by Finance Minister is valid — This chunk pertains to a court case (C.A. No. 2491 of 2014) involving an IRS Officer who was allegedly in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The document presents th... — Facts: The present case of an Officer of the IRS Cadre having disproportionate income of ₹ 1,27,38,353 was detected by the CBI (R-4 herein) in his name and in the name of his wife. The investigation took about 6 years and it was found that an income of ₹ 56,30,296 was invested through benami transaction in the name of his wife and son in two companies. The loans reported to have been taken by Priyanka Batra, wife of the Applicant were not paid back and the sale through the company of Applicant's wife is minimal. The company acquired assets of ₹ 85,70,770 during the check period of 4-1-1993 to 31-3-2003. The Appellant was arrested for income beyond his known source of income. CVC recommended prosecution of the Applicant. The case was referred to DoP&T which conveyed that insufficient evidence can be tested in the Court of law and sanction for prosecution can be granted. The Competent Authority, finally sanctioned on 9-10-2010 for prosecution of the Applicant. High Court dismissed the challenge of the Applicant for prosecution by the impugned order 2013 SCC Online Bom. 1847, Vivek Batra v. Union of India. The Apex Court noted the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules is reproduced for clarity. In the case of Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab [2010 (4) SCC 192], it was held that, final decision is required to be taken by Designated Authority keeping in view the larger public interest. In the case of Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA [2009 (1) SCC 180], it was held that notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and final order is communicated to the person concerned. In that view it was held: