9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 768 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy / recovery of penalty form the heirs of deceased officer - Disciplinary action against the sales tax officer - failure to verify the correct address of the person sought registration at fake address - it was revealed that M/s.Umiya Industries committed an evasion of Sales Tax by practicing bogus billing activities.- Held that - the petitioner passed away on 14.01.2008, and his heirs are on record. Nineteen years have passed since the Chargesheet was issued. The penalty order was passed on 05.11.2001. Over fourteen years have passed since then. It may be possible that the entire record may not be available either with the authorities or the heirs of the deceased petitioner. Further, the legal heirs would not be in a position to represent the case effectively as they may not be fully conversant with the facts. In the view of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the Disciplinary Authority to open up another innings, after the death of the employee. - this Court does not consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Compliance with Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Non-communication of the Gujarat Public Service Commission's advice. 5. Appropriateness of remanding the case back to the Disciplinary Authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Penalty Order Imposed by the Disciplinary Authority: The petitioner challenged the penalty order dated 05.11.2001, which imposed a reduction in pension by Rs. 200 per month for five years. The penalty was based on allegations of negligence in scrutinizing documents for a sales tax registration certificate, leading to tax evasion by M/s. Umiya Industries. Despite the Inquiry Officer finding the charges unproven, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed the penalty, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention. 2. Compliance with Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971: The petitioner argued that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with Rule 10(2), which mandates recording reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings and providing those reasons to the delinquent officer. The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice lacked specific reasons for disagreement, making it difficult to respond effectively. The court emphasized that Rule 10(2) requires the Disciplinary Authority to record its reasons for disagreement and its own findings on charges, which was not adequately done in this case. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner claimed that the Disciplinary Authority violated principles of natural justice by not providing specific reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including *Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra* and *Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra*, which established that the delinquent officer must be given an opportunity to represent against the tentative reasons for disagreement. The court found that the Disciplinary Authority's actions amounted to an empty formality, causing prejudice and injustice to the petitioner. 4. Non-communication of the Gujarat Public Service Commission's Advice: The petitioner argued that the Disciplinary Authority did not provide a copy of the GPSC's advice before passing the penalty order, violating principles of natural justice. The court referenced *Union of India v. S. K. Kapoor*, where the Supreme Court held that failure to supply the GPSC's report in advance constitutes a violation of natural justice. However, the court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the lack of tentative reasons for disagreement. 5. Appropriateness of Remanding the Case Back to the Disciplinary Authority: Given the petitioner's death and the passage of nineteen years since the Chargesheet was issued, the court considered whether to remand the case for fresh hearing. Citing *Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra*, the court decided against remanding the case, noting that the petitioner's heirs might not effectively represent the case due to the lapse of time and potential unavailability of records. The court concluded that remanding the case would not serve a fruitful purpose. Conclusion: The court quashed and set aside the impugned penalty order dated 05.11.2001, allowing the petition. The court ruled that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with Rule 10(2) and violated principles of natural justice by not providing specific reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings. The court also decided against remanding the case to the Disciplinary Authority, considering the petitioner's death and the significant passage of time.
|
