9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubramanian was discharged in view of certain illegality / inadvertence / mistake committed on the part of the Department. The Commercial Tax Officer has been discharged consciously by admitting the fact that there was a lapse on his part as well. He has been discharged, since the revenue impact has been eliminated subsequently. In such case, the same logic for granting the advantage ought to have been extended to the petitioner who is also similarly placed. No point of time the respondents have alleged any malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. In fact, even in the order of punishment, it has been explicitly mentioned that there is no element of any ulterior motive on the part of the petitioner. So there cannot be any diffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it for non- production of original purchase bills for the years 2011-12 to 2012-13 to the tune of Rs. 23,124/- was found out. But the inspection team was charged for the lapse on their part for not bringing to the notice of the Department that during the earlier years from 2007-08, number of defects including the stock difference to the tune of Rs. 35,71,385/- which has a tax effect of Rs. 2,82,847/- was not unearthed. The above fact was brought to the notice of the Department by the subsequent inspection team and hence, the petitioner and other members of the team has been charged for careless handling of the surprise inspection and suppression of the material facts that should be brought to the notice of the Department. 3.1. The othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging the order passed in G.O.(D)No.78 dated 28.05.2020 issued by the first respondent. 5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed upon the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer who was the head of the inspection team has been exonerated from the charges and the petitioner who is also similarly placed and who also forms part of the same inspection team alone was punished. The proceedings in G.O.(2D).No.01, CT R(E1) Department dated 05.01.2022 which dropped the charges against the then Commercial Tax Officer G.Balasubramanian who is presently working as the Assistant Commissioner (CT), has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against G.Balasubramanian, Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) / Personal Assistant to Joint Commissioner (under suspension) as NOT PROVED . The Government have therefore decided to drop further action in the disciplinary case initiated against the above official and order accordingly. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 10.08.2021 made in W.A.No.1558 of 2021 and submitted that when the charges of misconduct was identical and the charges against the co-delinquent has been dropped, the similar advantage should be extended to the petitioner as well. In the said judgment, several Supreme Court judgments on the same point have been referred and it is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service jurisprudence, Article 14 of the Constitution of India has got no application and the petitioner is not entitled to base his claim that he should also be extended with the similar treatment that has been given to his fellow delinquent. In support of the above contention, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6974 6975 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 has been relied. This Court's attention was drawn to the paragraph No.8 of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder: 8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraude, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;wrong' committed in a earlier case should not be perpetuated and such benefit cannot be extended to all other similarly placed persons. 10. But in the case on hand, it is not the claim of the respondents that the team head G.Balasubramanian was discharged in view of certain illegality / inadvertence / mistake committed on the part of the Department. The Commercial Tax Officer has been discharged consciously by admitting the fact that there was a lapse on his part as well. He has been discharged, since the revenue impact has been eliminated subsequently. In such case, the same logic for granting the advantage ought to have been extended to the petitioner who is also similarly placed. 11. No point of time the respondents have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
