2023 (6) TMI 1230 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside suspension orders due to lack of fair treatment & procedural adherence.

GADDAGANDHAM RAGHAVENDRA VARA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, The Chief Commissioner of State Taxes Kunchanapally, The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (ST) And The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes Park

The Court allowed all writ petitions, including W.P.No. 2893 of 2023, setting aside the suspension orders dated 23.01.2023. The Court found the ... Issuance of Suspension proceedings - Action on enquiry report - petitioner were put under suspension without any basis and without following the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - HELD THAT:- It is manifest that the respondent authorities already conducted detailed enquiries on two occasions i.e., on 16.04.2021 and 19.12.2022, and by relying the said enquiry reports and without observing the principles of natural justice and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to submit an explanation, the present impugned orders came to be passed by de horsing the procedure as contemplated under Rules 21 and 22 (1) of the CCA Rules, 1991. On a perusal of the Rule 8 (1), this Court is of the opinion that Rule 8(1) is not applicable, since the enquiry was already completed twice in the present case and the enquiry reports were submitted by the Inquiry Officers on 16.04.2021 and 19.12.2022. As per service jurisprudence, as stated by the respondents, that the notice is contemplated under Rule 8(1) of CCA Rules before issuing impugned proceedings is misconception, but in the given facts and circumstances and also as per the circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), if any enquiry or anyaction is proceeded by the disciplinary authority basing upon anonymous letters/complaints by third parties or news reports, the authority under obligation to issue prior notice to concerned delinquents before any enquiry/action. The detailed enquiries were already conducted and basing upon the enquiry reports, the present impugned orders were passed. As seen from the impugned order, it is crystal clear that no show cause notice and no charge memo were issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation and no opportunity was given to him to participate in the enquiries said to have been conducted by the respondents. The fact remains that the enquiries were not conducted as per the CCA Rules, 1991 without complying the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of CCA Rules, 1991 - It is also settled principle of law that, basing upon anonymous letter or complaint from the public and news reports, neither the disciplinary proceedings nor punishment can be proceeded/imposed/awarded. The enquiry reports dated 16.04.2021 and 19.12.2022 cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the power of suspension is only to be used to achieve the object to keep the delinquent away from the records and witnesses at the time of enquiry, but here enquiry was already completed, and the power cannot be used as a means of punishment. In fact, the present impugned proceedings does not speak any administrative exigencies, but due to the enquiry reports which are unknown to the petitioner, the impugned proceedings were issued for other reasons particularly as punitive measure only. The respondents did not follow due process of law before issuing the impugned orders, which would attract the principle of malice in law as the impugned order was not based on any real factor germane and it was based upon the allegations made against a unit of Department in a news item published in a Telugu Newspaper on 04.04.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner never discharged his duties at the subject unit and his duties do not at all relate to collection of tax as alleged - Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the suspension of the petitioner.2. Alleged misconduct and procedural adherence in the enquiry.3. Connection between association activities and suspension.Summary:Legality of the Suspension:The petitioner filed W.P.No. 2893 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the suspension order dated 23.01.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent, claiming it was without basis and did not follow the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (CCA Rules, 1991).Alleged Misconduct and Procedural Adherence:The petitioner, initially appointed as Record Assistant and later promoted to Goods and Services Tax Officer (GSTO), was suspended due to allegations of misconduct related to the handling of supplier information and payments. The respondent argued that the suspension was based on prima facie material from discreet preliminary and final enquiries, asserting that no prior notice is required under Rule 8(1) of the CCA Rules, 1991. The petitioner contended that the suspension was punitive, biased, and issued without proper enquiry or opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.Connection Between Association Activities and Suspension:The petitioner claimed that the suspension was a retaliatory action by the State Government for submitting a representation to the Hon'ble Governor regarding employee grievances. The petitioner argued that both the show cause notice for derecognition of the Association and the suspension were issued on the same date, aiming to suppress employee voices. The respondent denied any connection between the suspension and the petitioner's association activities, stating the suspension was solely due to the petitioner's misconduct affecting state revenue.Court's Analysis and Decision:The Court noted that the detailed enquiries conducted on 16.04.2021 and 19.12.2022 were not in compliance with the CCA Rules, 1991, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate. The Court emphasized that suspension should not be punitive and must follow due process. The suspension order was found to be based on outdated enquiry reports and not on any real-time misconduct by the petitioner. The Court referenced the principles laid down in M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and M.R.A. Samuel Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, highlighting the need for fair treatment and adherence to procedural rules.Conclusion:The Court allowed W.P.No. 2893 of 2023, setting aside the suspension order dated 23.01.2023. Similarly, W.P.Nos. 2891, 2892, and 2851 of 2023 were allowed, setting aside the respective suspension orders, as they were found to be issued without proper enquiry and procedural adherence.Result:All writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned suspension orders were set aside.