2016 (2) TMI 814 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority - failure to discharge official duties in relation to granting Registration Certificate under Section 30 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 - Held that - due to the lack of tentative reasons being communicated to the petitioner, he is unable to make a representation addressing those specific reasons. The opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner can hardly be called effective or adequate. It is more in the nature of an empty formality to show an outward compliance with the Rules and law. In effect, the principles of natural justice have clearly been violated and the petitioner has suffered prejudice and injustice due to such violation. In the present case, the petitioner retired from service on 13.10.2013, on attaining the age of superannuation. Nineteen years have passed since the Chargesheet was issued. The penalty order was passed on 05.11.2001. Over fourteen years have elapsed since then. It may be possible that the entire record may not be available either with the authorities or the petitioner. 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. - this Court does not consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. The impugned order dated 05.11.2001, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, is hereby quashed and set aside. - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the disciplinary authority's order imposing a penalty.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
3. Adequacy of reasons provided for disagreement with the inquiry officer's findings.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Appropriateness of remanding the matter for fresh hearing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Disciplinary Authority's Order Imposing a Penalty:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.11.2001, by the Disciplinary Authority, which imposed a penalty of withholding one increment of Rs. 175 in the petitioner's payscale for five years with future effect. The petitioner contended that the penalty was unjust as the Inquiry Officer had found the charges against him unproven.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971:
The petitioner argued that under Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings and its own findings on the charge if the evidence on record is sufficient. The petitioner claimed that these procedural requirements were not met, as the Show Cause Notice did not specify the grounds for disagreement.

3. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for Disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's Findings:
The petitioner asserted that the Show Cause Notice lacked specific reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report, which only reiterated the allegations without providing detailed reasons. The Disciplinary Authority's failure to record tentative reasons for disagreement and its own findings was argued to be a procedural lapse, causing prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the lack of specific reasons in the Show Cause Notice deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority's actions were seen as predetermined, and the second Show Cause Notice was viewed as an empty formality rather than a genuine opportunity for the petitioner to present his case.

5. Appropriateness of Remanding the Matter for Fresh Hearing:
The court considered whether to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh hearing. Given that the petitioner had retired and significant time had elapsed since the penalty order, the court found that remanding the case would not serve a fruitful purpose. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Punjab National Bank And Others v. Kunj Behari Misra, which held that remanding a case after a significant lapse of time would not be in the interest of justice.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 10(2) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, as it did not provide tentative reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings. This failure resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice and caused prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.11.2001, was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The court decided not to remand the matter for fresh hearing, considering the significant time that had elapsed and the petitioner's retirement.

← Previous Next →