1994 (2) TMI 289

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....980 onwards. Alleging that during the discharge of his duties, he has temporarily embezzled and misappropriated Government funds; that he was absent unauthorisedly and that he has not handed over charge of the Government records, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated July 14, 1982, holding that all the charges are proved. Accepting that enquiry report a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. In response to that second show cause notice the petitioner submitted that his explanation was not considered. The Government after considering his representation dated March 14, 1983, referred the matter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enged the validity of that notice on the ground that quantum of liability is not fixed; that the demand notice was not issued for an ascertained amount and that the Commercial Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to sell the immovable property in order to realise the amount misappropriated by the delinquent officer. He relied upon the letter dated August 24, 1984, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer-I, Rangareddy District, to the petitioner calling upon him to remit the amount of Rs. 33,412.88 which was collected by him towards the taxes due from the dealers and was misappropriated by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice dated August 24, 1984, was issued prior to the initiation of the disciplinary enquiry and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....property and to realise the amount misappropriated by the delinquent officer. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no demand notice was issued for the ascertained amount. For that the learned Government Pleader submitted that what was issued to the petitioner is only notice intimating the petitioner of the action proposed to be taken for recovery of the misappropriated amount and thereby giving an opportunity to the petitioner to clear-off that amount. Though the notice dated May 21, 1987, was served on the petitioner, he has not taken any steps to make the payment. According to the learned Government Pleader, since the petitioner has not paid the amount in response to the notice dated May 21, 1987, ....