2026 (3) TMI 303 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Judicial intervention in pending disciplinary proceedings permitted where prima facie evidence shows non connection and irreparable prejudice; suspension revoked and inquiry expedited.

Court addressed scope of writ jurisdiction over ongoing departmental proceedings, holding that exceptional writ relief is available where prima facie ... Writ jurisdiction in departmental proceedings - lawful cause of action - suspension of government servant - process of distortion - prima facie non-attribution of alleged misconduct - distortion occurred during the petitioner’s tenure as Inspector of Taxed, especially when the internal inquiry report implicated the petitioner along with other officials. Interference in pending departmental proceedings - HELD THAT:- The Court examined the Single Judge's exercise of writ jurisdiction in the context of an ongoing departmental inquiry where memorandum and articles of charge had been served and the inquiry authority was preparing to record witness statements. The Court recognised the general principle that interference by a writ court in disciplinary proceedings is restricted and permissible only in exceptional cases or where statutory violation is shown. Applying that principle to the facts, the Court found the case to be exceptional insofar as the petitioner had challenged the foundation of the charges on a prima facie basis and there was material indicating the petitioner may not have been attached to the charge-sheeted post when the alleged act occurred. Rather than wholly supplanting the disciplinary process, the Court modified the relief granted by the Single Judge: it confirmed that inquiry should proceed but directed the inquiry authority to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and fairly by a specified date, while ensuring the petitioner cooperates with the process. [Paras 14, 24, 25] Writ interference limited: inquiry to continue but must be concluded expeditiously and fairly; the Court modified the Single Judge's order to impose a timetable and supervisory direction rather than permanently precluding the disciplinary process. Prima facie non-attribution of alleged misconduct - Whether on the material before the Court the petitioner could be prima facie implicated in the alleged overwriting/distortion of the assessment order. - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the articles of charge and the assessment orders relied upon, the Court observed that the two assessment orders (dated 22.08.2012 and 28.03.2015) were passed by two different officers and the record of service showed that the petitioner occupied the post of Inspector of Taxes when those orders were passed and was promoted to Superintendent of Taxes only with effect from 02.02.2017. Given that chronology, the Court found it surprising that a memo of charge had been issued implicating the petitioner in respect of the charge-sheeted assessment order. The Court treated this as a significant prima facie defect in attribution of the alleged misconduct and a factor rendering the case exceptional for limited judicial intervention. [Paras 22, 23] The petitioner's prima facie non-implication on the material before the Court was recognised as a basis for limited relief; this undermined the foundation of the departmental allegation and warranted direction for a fair and expeditious inquiry. Direction for expeditious conclusion of departmental inquiry - Whether the Court should direct a timeframe for conclusion of the departmental inquiry and permit the petitioner to continue in service pending its outcome. - HELD THAT:- Balancing the limited scope for judicial intervention in disciplinary matters with the petitioner's prima facie case on attribution, the Court exercised supervisory power to ensure effective adjudication. It ordered the inquiry authority to conclude the departmental proceedings expeditiously and fairly, specifying a target date for completion. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already resumed charge in a promoted post and directed that he would continue in service until the disciplinary authority proceeds in accordance with law. [Paras 25] Inquiry to be completed preferably on or before 31st August, 2026; petitioner to cooperate with proceedings and to continue in service until further lawful orders. Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by modifying the Single Judge's order: the Court recognised a prima facie defect in attributing the alleged distortion to the petitioner, restricted broad writ interference with the disciplinary process but directed the inquiry authority to proceed fairly and conclude the departmental inquiry expeditiously (preferably by 31st August, 2026); the petitioner shall cooperate and continue in service pending the outcome. Issues: (i) Whether writ relief to quash suspension and related disciplinary steps could be granted at the stage when departmental proceedings have been initiated but not concluded; (ii) Whether the suspension order and consequent memorandum against the respondent should be revoked and the disciplinary inquiry directed to be completed within a specified time.Issue (i): Whether judicial intervention is permissible in the pending departmental proceedings at the present stage.Analysis: The issue involves examination of the timing and limits of writ jurisdiction in relation to ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The material shows that show-cause notice and articles of charge were issued and an internal inquiry report implicated several officials; however, the charge documents and service records were examined to determine the respondent's attachment to the charge at relevant times and whether exceptional circumstances justified interference prior to conclusion of the inquiry.Conclusion: Writ relief is permissible in an exceptional case where prima facie material demonstrates that the charged official was not connected with the alleged acts at the relevant time and that the departmental process, if allowed to proceed without correction, would cause irreparable prejudice; accordingly, limited judicial intervention is warranted.Issue (ii): Whether the suspension order dated 26.07.2024, the consequential memorandum dated 07.09.2024 and the subsequent order dated 23.10.2024 should be revoked and whether the inquiry should be directed to be concluded within a time frame.Analysis: The question requires comparison of assessment orders, appointment and promotion records to ascertain whether the respondent held the post alleged to have committed the distortion. The assessment orders of 22.08.2012 and 28.03.2015 bear the names of other officers and service records show the respondent was an inspector and promoted to superintendent only w.e.f. 02.02.2017. Given this prima facie material and the risk to service career, the appropriateness of revocation of suspension and directing completion of inquiry within a timeline was considered.Conclusion: The suspension order and consequential memo are to remain revoked and the respondent shall continue in service; however, the inquiry shall be completed expeditiously, preferably by 31 August 2026. This disposition preserves the respondent's service rights while ensuring the departmental process is concluded without undue delay.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by modifying the earlier order-the revocation of suspension stands and the respondent continues in service, while the disciplinary inquiry is directed to be concluded expeditiously within the specified timeframe.Ratio Decidendi: Exceptional writ relief may be granted prior to completion of departmental proceedings where prima facie material shows the charged official was not responsible for the impugned act at the relevant time and where continuing suspension or ongoing proceedings would cause disproportionate or irreparable prejudice; in such cases courts may revoke suspension and direct expeditious completion of inquiry while leaving the inquiry's merits to the disciplinary authority.