TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the respondent and setting aside the order of termination of the respondent dated 20.10.2001. Few facts giving rise to the writ petition are stated thus :The respondent was appointed by the petitioners as a Sales Tax Inspector by the order dated 14.2.1997. The appointment order clearly recited that in case the respondent fails to clear the departmental examination within a period of three years and within three chances, his services would be terminated without any prior notice. The relevant rules however provided that an additional opportunity, i.e., fourth chance could be granted to an employee for appearing at the departmental examination at the discretion of the Sales Tax Commissioner or Additional Sales Tax Commissioner. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 5 of the Unified Rules for Departmental Examination of Sales Tax Inspectors and Higher Clerical Staff of the Sales Tax Department, 1972. Being aggrieved by the order of his removal, the respondent filed the original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent and quashed and set aside the order of removal. The order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the State Government in this writ petition. Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in ignoring the instructions and the provisions of the Rules of 1972. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 1998 and 1999 by appearing at the examinations conducted in 1999 and 2000 respectively but failed in those examinations. It is submitted that by exercising the discretion, the concerned authority granted an additional chance to the respondent to appear at the examination at his request, but the respondent was not successful in the additional fourth chance also. It is submitted that though the respondent has not averred in the original application that he could not avail the first chance as he was sent for training at the relevant time, the Tribunal has erroneously observed in the impugned order that since the respondent was sent for training in December, 1998 he could not have appeared at the examination that was conducted in June, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. The respondent was appointed in the year 1997 and by the appointment order itself it was made clear that the respondent would be removed from services, if he does not pass the departmental examination in three attempts and within three years. As per the relevant Rules of the year 1972 an employee was entitled to an additional chance, i.e., a fourth chance only at the discretion of the concerned authority. The departmental examinations are liable to be conducted every year. Since the respondent was appointed in February, 1997, the respondent was liable to take an attempt at the examination scheduled in December 1997, 1998 and 1999 and was required to pass in the examination in at least three attempts. The examination for the year 1997, i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tailed instructions dated 9.12.1997 and 31.3.1998 that were given wide publicity. As per paragraph 8 of the instructions, the Tribunal ought to have held that first chance was not availed by the respondent in June, 1998 and hence that was a lost chance. Nonappearance of the respondent in June, 1998 examination should be considered as the first chance that was availed by the respondent though it was lost by him. The respondent failed to clear the examination in the second attempt (in the year 1999) and in the third attempt (in the year 2000) though he had appeared for those examinations. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the respondent had availed only three chances and not four. The case of the respondent in that regard was fal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to hold that an employee who had to join the training in December, 1998 could not have appeared at the examination held in June, 1998. If the examination was held more than six months before the respondent was sent for training, it is difficult to gauge as to how the respondent could not have appeared at the examination due to the training. In any case, such is not the stand of the respondent in the original application as in the original application the respondent has stated that he did not appear at the examination for the year 1997 as he had no notice about the said examination. Even assuming that the respondent was sent for training at the same time, which is not the case here, the petitioners cannot be blamed as the respondent had not....