2020 (1) TMI 1296 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - direction to petitioner to pay the fine and 18% GST within a period of 7 days - opportunity of hearing not provided to petitioner - HELD THAT - The impugned proceedings of the second respondent even though carries the nomenclature of a show cause notice, in effect, it is directing the petitioner to pay the penalty along with GST within a period of 7 days, failing which, the petitioner will be removed from service. Before passing such an order, the petitioner was not put on notice and his explanation was not sought for. Therefore, the proceedings of the second respondent is in the nature of an order passed behind the back of the petitioner, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the same requires interference of this Court on that ground alone. The second respondent is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner setting out all the details and the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation/objection and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the petitioner - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned proceedings dated 26-12-2019 directing petitioner to pay fine and GST within 7 days, suspension threat, lack of opportunity for petitioner, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Salesman at a TASMAC shop, challenged impugned proceedings demanding payment of penalty and GST within 7 days, threatening service termination. Petitioner argued lack of opportunity before issuing order, citing a previous court order emphasizing the need for due process. Respondent alleged petitioner overcharged liquor, enriching himself, leading to suspension. Court noted the absence of a show-cause notice, essential for imposing penalties, and lack of opportunity for the petitioner to defend. The court referred to a similar case where due process was emphasized, leading to the quashing of the impugned order. The court found the petitioner punished without due process, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing a fresh show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner to explain and the authorities to decide in accordance with the law.

The respondent argued that the impugned proceedings were akin to a show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner to provide an explanation before final orders. However, the court observed that the order demanding penalty and GST within 7 days, with a threat of service termination, lacked due process as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond. The court reiterated the importance of affording the delinquent official a chance to defend, as per statutory procedures. The court found the actions of the second respondent predetermined, directing payment without an enquiry. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were quashed, and the second respondent was directed to issue a fresh show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner to present explanations and ensuring due process in further proceedings.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned proceedings and directing the second respondent to issue a fresh show-cause notice, affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring fairness and procedural correctness. The judgment highlighted the necessity of providing a fair chance for the delinquent official to defend against allegations before imposing penalties or taking adverse actions, as mandated by law.