2020 (6) TMI 178 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioner while serving as a Commercial Tax Officer has failed to verify the effect of corresponding taxable sales / transit sales of the dealers Tvl Uco Agency, merely because under Charge No.3, there was no loss for the Government, it is paramount duty of the petitioner, while he was serving as a Commercial Tax Officer, who ought to have verified by holding detailed enquiry about the turnover of a particular company, but the act of the petitioner who failed to verify such effects and corresponding sales / transit sales was only to aid and help the particular agency which is not warranted from the petitioner, who was working as a Commercial Tax Officer.' Our Country is run only by the tax paid by the assesses made by the individual or from the companies. The duty is cast upon the tax officers, who execute their duties diligently, however, the petitioner's attitude, while he was serving as a Commercial Tax Officer, is not acceptable. Likewise, charge Nos.4 and 5 are also serious as charge No.3 when the petitioner while finalizing the assessment of the particular agency failed to mention in the assessment order how the purchase worth of ₹ 1,50,06,565/- made by issuing Form 'C' have been sold by the particular agency - On perusing the impugned order passed by the first respondent, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order, because there is no loss, as alleged by the petitioner, to the Government. Furthermore, the petitioner who ought to have been vigilant against all agencies has derelicted himself from the duty cast upon him to aid a particular agency, escaping from making the assessment. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent, based on the findings of the enquiry officer, cannot be interfered with. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition for Certiorarified Mandamus to quash proceedings and disburse retirement benefits.
2. Suspension of petitioner on charges, enquiry findings, and revocation of suspension.
3. Delay in passing final orders, proposed punishment, and Right to Information Act petition.
4. Challenge to impugned order imposing recovery and cut in pension.
5. Argument on charges held against petitioner and financial loss to the Department.
6. Enquiry officer's findings, Government's agreement, and delay in passing final orders.
7. Respondent's contention on dealer's business, revenue loss, and leniency in punishment.
8. Court hearing and review of records regarding charges and enquiry findings.
9. Analysis of charge Nos. 3 to 5 and petitioner's actions as a Commercial Tax Officer.
10. Duty of tax officers, petitioner's failure to verify sales, and aiding an agency.
11. Seriousness of charges 4 and 5, failure to mention sales in assessment order, and liability.
12. Lack of reason to interfere with the impugned order, petitioner's duty, and findings of enquiry officer.
13. Court's decision on lack of interference, duty negligence, and order validity.
14. Dismissal of the Writ Petition for lack of merits, without costs.

Issue 1: Writ petition for Certiorarified Mandamus
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the proceedings in G.O(2D) No.8 dated 23.01.2012, passed by the first respondent, and to quash the same. Additionally, the petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits within the stipulated time.

Issue 2: Suspension, Enquiry, and Revocation
The petitioner, a former Junior Assistant, was suspended on charges upon superannuation. An Enquiry Officer found charge Nos. 1 and 2 not proved, while charge Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were proved. The suspension was revoked, allowing the petitioner to retire without prejudice to pending disciplinary action.

Issue 3: Delay in Passing Final Orders
Despite completing the enquiry, the first respondent delayed passing final orders, proposing a punishment and recovery from retirement benefits. The petitioner's Right to Information Act petition revealed the case's status with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

Issue 4: Challenge to Impugned Order
The impugned order dated 23.01.2012 imposed recovery and a cut in pension on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order through the Writ Petition, seeking relief from the court.

Issue 5: Argument on Charges and Financial Loss
The petitioner argued that charge Nos. 3 to 5, which were proved, had no relevancy as there was no financial loss to the Department during his tenure as a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.

Issue 6: Enquiry Findings and Delay
The petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer's findings favored him, and the Government agreed, highlighting the delay in passing final orders despite the court's directive.

Issue 7: Respondent's Contention
The Special Government Pleader argued that the petitioner aided a dealer in escaping assessment, causing revenue loss. The imposed recovery was deemed lenient, considering the gravity of the charges.

Issue 8: Court Hearing and Review
After hearing all parties, the court reviewed the records, focusing on the charges and findings of the enquiry officer to make a comprehensive decision.

Issue 9: Analysis of Charges 3 to 5
The court analyzed the grave nature of charge Nos. 3 to 5, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to verify sales, aiding an agency, and the impact on revenue assessment.

Issue 10: Duty of Tax Officers
The court stressed the duty of tax officers to diligently execute their responsibilities, finding the petitioner's actions as a Commercial Tax Officer unacceptable.

Issue 11: Seriousness of Charges 4 and 5
Charges 4 and 5 were deemed serious due to the petitioner's failure to mention sales in the assessment order, leading to liability and findings against him.

Issue 12: Lack of Interference
The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, considering the lack of loss to the Government and the petitioner's negligence in aiding an agency.

Issue 13: Court's Decision
Based on the findings and circumstances, the court declined to consider the petitioner's case, upholding the validity of the order and highlighting the petitioner's duty negligence.

Issue 14: Dismissal of Writ Petition
Concluding that the Writ Petition lacked merits, the court dismissed it without imposing any costs, thereby resolving the legal dispute.