TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Jharkhand, Ranchi, no alleged financial loss has been caused to the Government and, therefore from the very initiation of charge till its culmination, the petitioner has become scapegoat and victim of the circumstances. The charge alleged against the petitioner has not been discussed nor the charge of ante dating have been proved so as to fasten guilt on the petitioner as evident from the inquiry report. Therefore, the inquiry report is perverse and the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of perverse inquiry report being legally unsustainable, is liable to be quashed. Restoration of the petitioner to his original position with consequential service benefits - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W. P. (S) No. 1781 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2016 - Pramath Patnaik, J. For the Petitioner : M/s Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : Miss Shivani Verma, J.C to A.A.G JUDGMENT Per Pramath Patnaik, J. In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 pertaining to order of punishm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was remanded to him. Since as per the direction of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner disposed of the said appeals, no latches lie on the part of the petitioner in disposing of the said appeal. It has further been disclosed in the writ application that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department on 08.07.2010, revision was preferred but the petitioner heard and disposed of the appeals on 07.07.2010 and no information whatsoever was furnished before the petitioner with regard to filing of the revision against the appellate order. It has further been submitted that the revision has also been disposed of by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and no financial loss has been caused to the Government. 3. Per-contra, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 repelling the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that on perusal of the order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-6) it is evident that when the petitioner did not submit reply to the 2nd Show cause notice then again extension of time was granted to enable the petitioner to fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vide its letter dated 10.02.2016 that no such order is available in the office as evident from Annexure-C to the supplementary counter-affidavit. (D) On the point as to whether an official discharging official duty can be made liable for any act done in discharge quasi-judicial functions- The respondents state and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Duli Chand reported in (2006) 5 SCC 680 has clarified the law with regard to departmental enquiry against quasi-judicial exercise of power as Honble Apex Court has held that the law laid down in Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar's case does not correctly represent the law. The view expressed in the case of Union of India Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan is the correct law. Paragraph no.5 of the judgment of Duli Chand's case deals with the correct proposition of law. (E) On the point that the loss caused to State Exchequer is real loss or hypothetical loss- The respondents submitted that the petitioner passed reassessment orders in favour of the dealers pursuant to the order of remand. The result of the reassessment order was that the tax liability of the dealers were reduced drastically. As such th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. But to the best of knowledge of the petitioner that in the revision cases passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Ranchi, no financial loss has been caused to the Government. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment of the reduction dated 11.02.2014 to a lower rank being not sustainable, is liable to be set aside. 6. As against this learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shivani Verma, J.C to A.A.G, learned counsel for the respondents has assiduously submitted that the charges against the petitioner are grave and during the inquiry, complicity of the petitioner is that he was hand in glove with different industries has surfaced and, therefore, on the basis of the proved charges, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has been granted adequate opportunity but as evident from inquiry report, the petitioner chose not to participate in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, there is absolutely no procedural irregularities/infirmity so far as from the initiation departmental proceeding till its culmination is concerned. 7. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the revili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
