9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include disciplinary proceedings against a Deputy Commercial Tax officer for negligence in assessment leading to loss of government revenue, challenge to the punishment imposed, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review disciplinary actions. Disciplinary Proceedings and Punishment Imposed: The respondent, a Deputy Commercial Tax officer, faced charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules for various failures in assessment leading to a substantial loss of government revenue. After a proper enquiry, the charges were found proved, and a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed. Challenge to Punishment: The respondent challenged the punishment through O.A. No. 1400/90 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the punishment, citing the hierarchy of authorities for correction in cases of palpably wrong assessments not warranting disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal held that the disciplinary proceedings and consequential punishment were not justified based on the quasi-judicial functions exercised by the officer under the General Sales Tax Act. Appellate Proceedings: The appellant, aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, filed a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court. Despite notice served on the respondent, no appearance was made to contest the matter. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision contradicted previous judgments of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing the disciplinary action. Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court, considering the disciplinary authority's finding of negligence causing a significant loss to the government exchequer, ruled that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to question the charges or the disciplinary authority's decision. Citing precedents, the Court held that disciplinary action was warranted in cases of misconduct, negligence, recklessness, or acts unbecoming of a government servant. The Court reinstated the disciplinary authority's punishment, emphasizing that disciplinary action could be taken for violations of Conduct Rules, even if the correctness of the orders could be challenged through appeal or revision under the Act.
|
