2018 (10) TMI 1056 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revocation of the reversion order issued in proceedings dated 18.12.2014 - promotion to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by fraudulent means - first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings on the allegation that the writ petitioner has submitted a bogus Junior Grade Accountancy Certificate and placed the writ petitioner under suspension. Held that - In view of the fact that the writ petitioner was under continuous suspension for a long duration and he had not served in the reverted post for about five years, it is not preferable to interfere with the order of reversion at this point of time. However, the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner is to be proceeded with and an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Rules must be conducted. This Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has to submit his explanations/objections in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memo and defend his case by establishing his innocence or otherwise. Contrarily, the charge memo, at this point of time, cannot be quashed in view of the fact that the allegations raised in the charge memo are certainly serious and in relation to the submission of bogus Junior Grade Accountancy Certificate in order to secure promotion to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The order of suspension issued against the writ petitioner was revoked, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner should co-operate for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and for passing final orders. The writ petitioner is directed to co-operate for the conclusion of the enquiry in all respects. In the event of non-cooperation on the part of the writ petitioner, the same shall be recorded by the Competent Authorities and if any such instances are found, then the time limit granted by this Court will not be binding on the respondents - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging charge memo and reversion order.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner challenged the charge memo issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, alleging the submission of a bogus certificate to secure a promotion. The petitioner was suspended and subsequently reverted from the promoted post. The Court noted that the suspension order was deemed invalid due to its prolonged duration. However, the reversion order was not implemented during the suspension period. The Court emphasized the need for conducting an inquiry based on the serious allegations in the charge memo.

The Court highlighted that the writ petitioner must provide explanations and defend against the allegations in the charge memo. It emphasized that the charge memo could not be quashed at that stage due to the gravity of the accusations. The Court stressed the importance of completing the disciplinary proceedings as per the Discipline and Appeal Rules, allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to present his case.

Regarding the challenge to the charge memo, the Court clarified that a charge memo could only be challenged on limited legal grounds. It mentioned that interference in disciplinary proceedings should be exceptional and not routine. The Court referenced legal precedents to support the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and emphasized that the correctness of charges was the disciplinary authority's domain.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court highlighted that a charge sheet, by itself, does not infringe on the rights of an employee and cannot be a cause for a writ petition unless it is issued by an incompetent authority. The Court directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a specified timeframe, urging the petitioner to cooperate. Non-cooperation could result in the time limit not being binding on the authorities. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenge to the charge memo and reversion order, emphasizing the need for a fair inquiry into the serious allegations made against the petitioner. It provided legal clarity on the limited grounds for challenging a charge memo and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction in such matters. The Court's directives focused on completing the disciplinary proceedings promptly while ensuring the petitioner's cooperation and adherence to the legal process.