Court quashes charge memo due to lack of revenue loss, contractors pay dues. Assessing Officer re-affirms innocence.

The Court quashed the charge memo issued to the petitioner, as there was no loss of revenue and the contractors had paid outstanding dues. The assessment order was initially quashed and remanded for fresh consideration, but no new order was issued. The Court directed the respondents to provide evidence of tax liability by the contractors. The Assessing Officer re-affirmed the earlier assessment order, and it was concluded that the petitioner could not be held guilty. The Court decided to quash the charge memo, as no useful purpose would be served by disciplinary proceedings, considering the petitioner's innocence and the closure of the FIR against the contractors.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to charge memo based on grounds of no loss of revenue, payment of outstanding dues by contractors, closure of FIR, quashing of assessment order, and re-affirmation of assessment order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the charge memo issued to him, contending that there was no loss of revenue to the respondents and the contractors had paid their outstanding dues. Additionally, an FIR initiated by the petitioner's predecessor was closed after the contractors paid the mentioned amount. The assessment order passed by the petitioner was quashed by the Court and remanded for fresh consideration, but no new order was issued. The Court directed the respondents to provide evidence of tax liability by the contractors.

The Government Advocate confirmed that no tax was payable by the contractors and the Assessing Officer re-affirmed the earlier assessment order. The Court noted that no misconduct was committed by the petitioner, as the assessment orders against the contractors were quashed and re-affirmed independently. It was concluded that the petitioner could not be held guilty based on the evidence and statements made. The Court stated that even if a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, it would absolve the petitioner from any misconduct.

The Court decided to quash the charge memo, considering that no useful purpose would be served by directing completion of disciplinary proceedings. The evidence and statements indicated the petitioner's innocence, especially since the assessment order was re-affirmed post the Court's directions. The closure of the FIR against the contractors further supported the petitioner's position. Consequently, the charge memo was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.

---