TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary and Appeal) Rules. The allegation made under the charge is that during the year 2004-2005, he had issued seven Transit Passes to a registered dealer M/s. VNMAD Firm, to a total value of Rs. 15,08,250/- for the interstate movement of goods on consignment sales to the Pondicherry Union State and thereby facilitated the trader to evade sales tax at the rate of 4% and that by the above said act, he has failed to maintain integrity, devotion to duty and thus violated Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rule, 1973. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.02.2009. After lapse of 3 years, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report after examining all the relevant material facts and evidence, stating that the charges I and II are 'not proved'. The first respondent differing with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer, issued a show-cause notice under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, dated 28.02.2012. The first respondent differed with the Enquiry Officer only on the reason that incorrect name of the check post was found. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed is in violation of Rules 9(1)(a), 2(a) and 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. He further pointed out that there is no specific finding rendered by the punishing authority that there is a pecuniary loss happened to the Government. He further pointed out that before passing this impugned order, remarks were not obtained from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as the petitioner has not agreed for withholding or withdrawing of pension. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in (1990)4 SCC 314 (D.V.Kapoor vs. Union of India and others), (1993)2 SCC 55 (V.D.Trivedi vs. Union of India), (1999)7 SCC 409 (Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and others) and unreported decision of this Court made in W.A(MD)No.171/2012 dated 13.03.2012. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the same was passed in accordance with law, as the petitioner has facilitated the trader to evade sales tax to a sum of Rs. 60,330/- by issuing four tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were issued by the petitioner to the assessee, was corroborated by the documentary evidence, Lorry Receipt, Consignment Note, Form XX, sales pattials and declaration of Form F. He further stated that non-surrender of transit pass is not the conclusive proof to decide whether the goods consigned have been sold within the State without being moved to Pondicherry. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the said explanation, proposed to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs. 1000/- per months for a period of three years. Such proposal was communicated to the petitioner through proceedings dated 04.07.2013 and he was called upon to offer his objection as against the proposed punishment. The petitioner once again disputed and denied the allegations and requested to drop the charges, through his letter dated 21.08.2013. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed, imposing the punishment as stated supra. 8. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the relevant Rule, namely, Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rule. 9(1)(a) The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of his service. It is also applicable in respect of service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. The Government can withhold or withdraw the pension irrespective of the fact whether any pecuniary loss on account of the misconduct or negligence was caused to the Government or not. However, the order withholding or withdrawing the pension can be passed only after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in case the pensioner does not agree to such a proposal. Under the second proviso, it has been stipulated that withholding or withdrawing a part of the pension cannot reduce the pension payable below the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43. Clause (b) of Rule 9(1) provides that if any pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government and in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement, then the Government shall have the right of ordering recovery of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused by such grave misconduct or negligence from the pension or Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against quasi- judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g. in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi-judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi- judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication of a quasi-judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi-judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant thr....