Allahabad HC Expresses Concern Over Professor Working In A State Medical University Found Indulging In Private Practice
The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over a Professor at King Georges Medical University, Lucknow indulging in private practice.
The Court was informed that Doctors of King Georges Medical University are entitled to non-practicing allowance and that there is bar from private practice which indicates that they cannot work anywhere except for the University where they are appointed.
“It is surprising that a person working in a State University is a Director of a private entity and despite huge amounts of money have been found in his personal account including cash during search operations, no action has been taken by his employer which is a State entity.”, Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Alok Mathur observed.
The Court noted that the conduct rules pertaining to government servant and even those employed in public corporation/utilities are not permitted to indulge in private practice unless there is specific rule or provisions in this regard.
“This Court takes a very serious view of the facts placed before it and it is expected that the university concerned and the State Government shall make due inquiries and proceed appropriately against such individuals who are found indulged in blatant private practice and making profits in private companies and also being on their Boards as Directors.”, the Court observed.
The Court made this observation while dealing with a tax plea filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
Advocate Manish Mishra appeared for the petitioner whereas D.D. Chopra and S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocates appeared for Respondents.
The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure was conducted on different premises of 5 persons including the aforesaid professor.
During the search cash of Rs. 1,76,94,500/- was seized ₹1,76,94,500/- was seized from the residential premises and from the office rooms of two persons.
At the time of the search, one of the assessee surrendered 8 crores as undisclosed ₹1,76,94,500/- was seized income.
Out of the 5 which were subject to search, three of them made separate applications on before the Settlement Commission under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.
The Settlement Commission settled the matter rejecting the objections raised by Income Tax Department.
The Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commission.
This is when it was brought on record that one of the persons working in a State University is a Director of a private entity.
Cause Title- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) v. Union of India and others