9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1103 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDisciplinary action against the officers for granting irregular refund - name of the respondent/writ petitioner was included in the panel of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax but a stay was invoked and the promotion was not granted - period from 2007-08 and 2008-09 - HELD THAT - It is admitted position that the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was included in the panel of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax for the panel year 2019-20. Though application for vacating the interim order passed inI.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P.No.16392 of 2018 was filed, for reasons which may not detain us, the said application has not been disposed of and, therefore, the interim order passed earlier continues to remain in force. In view of suspension of disciplinary proceeding initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.1074 dated 02.11.2016, this Court, vide order dated 13.05.2020, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.8628 of 2020, directed the respondents not only to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner but also to effect promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax expeditiously. The order dated 13.05.2020 was not assailed in any for - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order directing disciplinary action against the officers for granting irregular refund. 2. Delay in serving the disciplinary order on the respondent. 3. Judicial intervention in the promotion process due to pending disciplinary proceedings. 4. Consideration of promotion despite pending disciplinary proceedings. 5. Applicability of legal precedents regarding promotion during pending disciplinary proceedings. 6. Effect of interim orders on disciplinary proceedings and promotion decisions. Issue 1: The judgment addressed the validity of an order directing disciplinary action against officers for granting irregular refunds. The Special Chief Secretary issued an order proposing an inquiry against the respondent for irregularities in granting tax refunds, causing a substantial loss to the government. The respondent challenged the order's validity due to delays in service and subsequent legal actions. Issue 2: The delay in serving the disciplinary order on the respondent was highlighted. The respondent received the order after 17 months, leading to legal challenges and appeals. The timeline of events, including the filing of petitions and interim orders, was crucial in assessing the impact of the delayed service on the respondent's rights. Issue 3: The judgment discussed judicial intervention in the promotion process due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The High Court issued directions to consider the respondent for a promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, despite ongoing disciplinary actions. The court's intervention was based on the respondent's seniority and the urgency of the promotion decision. Issue 4: Consideration of promotion despite pending disciplinary proceedings was a key aspect of the case. The court directed the authorities to expedite the promotion process for the respondent, emphasizing the importance of following due process while balancing the respondent's right to promotion with the disciplinary proceedings against them. Issue 5: The judgment analyzed the applicability of legal precedents regarding promotion during pending disciplinary proceedings. It referenced cases where courts directed promotions despite ongoing disciplinary actions, subject to review post-enquiry. The court differentiated the facts of those cases from the present situation to determine the appropriate course of action. Issue 6: The impact of interim orders on disciplinary proceedings and promotion decisions was crucial. The judgment highlighted the continuation of interim orders due to pending applications, affecting the validity of subsequent decisions. The court emphasized the need to comply with previous directives regarding promotions and disciplinary actions. In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal, upholding the order directing promotion for the respondent despite pending disciplinary proceedings. The court relied on legal precedents, timelines of events, and the impact of interim orders to make a comprehensive decision in the case.
|
