informed by the Income-tax department who had conducted raid at the premise of the petitioner informed the Vigilance and the work having been perceived at the end of the Income-tax department was communicated to the Vigilance, expecting further investigation, at their end, whereupon vigilance case was registered and then thereafter, preliminary enquiry was made and finding prima facie substance and treating it sufficient for institution of the case, drawn up a special case wherein, after concluding investigation, chargesheet has been submitted. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer had acted in a mechanical manner relying upon the steps having been taken by the Income-tax authority without proceeding independently to ascertain the allegation whether justify the allegation and further, there was any kind of material having visible before the Investigating Officer to conclude that there happens to be accumulation of the properties disproportionate to the income, more particularly, for the check period 1965 to 1998. Had there been an independent source and further, independent finding supported by prima-facie authentic evidence having been collected during course of the investigation by the Investigating Officer, then in that event, one could have perceived that there happens to be possession of the property disproportionate to the income
