2014 (9) TMI 899 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of punishment of reduction from the post of Record Clerk to the post of Office Assistant - Petitioner allowed the vehicles carrying bone meals to pass through the Checkpost without making entries in the Movement Register to Kerala State during the period from June 1999 to January 2000 and thus paved the dealers to evade tax - Held that - Following the decision of Nyadar Singh versus Union of India and others 1988 (8) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT , this Court is the view that the impugned order of the respondent imposing the penalty of reduction on the petitioner who has been recruited to the post of Record Clerk, to the post of Office Assistant, lower than the post which she was recruited, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to disciplinary orders imposing punishment of reduction from Record Clerk to Office Assistant.

Analysis:
The petitioner was appointed as Record Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department and faced disciplinary proceedings for allowing vehicles to pass without proper entries, leading to tax evasion. The respondent imposed the punishment of reduction to Office Assistant, citing serious misconduct. The respondent claimed to have taken a lenient view considering the gravity of the charges. The petitioner challenged this punishment through a writ petition.

The High Court noted that the petitioner was directly recruited as a Record Clerk in 1989 and found the punishment of reduction to be improper. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Court highlighted that imposing a penalty of reduction on a government servant directly recruited to a higher post to a lower post is against service law principles. The Court quoted the Supreme Court's view that such penalties virtually amount to removal from the higher post, affecting recruitment policies.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court held that the penalty of reduction imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. The Court ordered the impugned order to be set aside and directed the respondent to restore the petitioner to her original position. The period spent in the lower post was to be treated as service in the previous post, with no entitlement to salary differences during the reduction period. The Court concluded that there was no need to remit the matter for fresh penalty imposition, and the proceedings against the petitioner should come to an end. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected matter was closed without costs.