2016 (10) TMI 206 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes unjustified demotion, reinstates petitioner. Charges vague, no loss proven. Compliance noted.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the order reducing him to a lower rank was unjustified. It was determined that the charges were ... Restoration of the petitioner to his original position with all consequential benefits - punishment of reduction to a lower rank - disposal of cases at the instance of the petitioner during the pendency of the revisions before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi - failure to file reply to SCN - loss caused to the State Exchequer due to misconduct on part of the petitioner - Held that: - the petitioner in pursuance to the direction of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department passed the order in appeal on 07.07.2010 and the said appeals were remanded by the appellate authority and the petitioner was never informed regarding pendency of the revision cases before the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Therefore, the petitioner discharged his officer's duties with sincerity. Hence, there has been no laxity and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, in disposing of the said appeals and ultimately in the revision petition disposed of by the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, no alleged financial loss has been caused to the Government and, therefore from the very initiation of charge till its culmination, the petitioner has become scapegoat and victim of the circumstances. The charge alleged against the petitioner has not been discussed nor the charge of ante dating have been proved so as to fasten guilt on the petitioner as evident from the inquiry report. Therefore, the inquiry report is perverse and the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of perverse inquiry report being legally unsustainable, is liable to be quashed. Restoration of the petitioner to his original position with consequential service benefits - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Challenge to order of punishment of reduction to a lower rank and restoration to original position with consequential benefits.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to order of punishmentThe petitioner sought to quash the order of punishment dated 11.02.2014, which reduced him to a lower rank. The petitioner contended that the charges against him were vague, no specific loss of revenue was mentioned, and the punishment was arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioner argued that he had disposed of appeals in compliance with directions, and no financial loss had been caused as per revision cases. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that a full-fledged departmental inquiry had established the petitioner's misconduct, causing a significant loss to the State Exchequer. The respondents maintained that the punishment was justified and in accordance with the law.Issue 2: Procedural irregularitiesThe petitioner's counsel argued that the charges were not adequately specified, and the petitioner had not participated in the departmental inquiry due to health reasons. The petitioner contended that there was no stay order or restraint from the Revisional Authority, and the alleged financial loss was hypothetical. The respondents, however, asserted that the petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunities, and the inquiry was conducted as per rules. They claimed that the petitioner's complicity with different industries had been established during the inquiry, justifying the punishment imposed.Judgment:After considering the submissions and records, the court found in favor of the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had discharged his duties sincerely and that no financial loss had been caused to the government. The court observed that the inquiry report did not discuss the charges adequately and that the punishment order was based on a flawed inquiry. Consequently, the court quashed the order of punishment dated 11.02.2014 and directed the restoration of the petitioner to his original position with all consequential benefits.This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, contentions, and findings of the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved in the case.