Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (12) TMI 421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hority - once the Assistant Post Master signed the vouchers and sanctioned the payment, it was not open to the respondent to stop such payment. As such, no liability for any purported illegality in making such payment in cash could be attributed to the respondent. Besides, although the respondent had clearly disputed the allegations in the charge sheet issued to him, no enquiry was conducted in this case. In O.K. BHARDWAJ VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [ 1996 (10) TMI 522 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, held that if the charges were factual and if they were denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should be called for. However, in the present case, no such enquiry was undertaken although the delinque .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... struction, for short) that was issued in compliance with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the depositor went before the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum with his grievances. The learned Forum decided that the messenger of the depositor was liable for the misappropriation and ordered him to pay back the entire amount of premature withdrawal. The depositor preferred an appeal before the learned State Commission. The learned State Disputes Redressal Commission arrived at the conclusion that not only the messenger of the depositor but the Purulia Head Post Office was also equally liable for the violations. 3. In complying with the order of the learned State Commission, the petitioners purportedly sustained a loss to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -. The respondent could not take a plea of ignorance of law as the same was not permissible. In a similar case decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported in the Department of Posts and Others vs. V.C. Sitamma, 2008 AIR Kant 62, it was held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had wide reach and had jurisdiction even in case of service rendered by statutory authorities. Here, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent was issued a charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules and subsequently, after due consideration of the respondent's representation, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty. It was a discretion of the disciplinary authority whether to proceed with a full-fledged disciplinary enqui .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ality in making such payment in cash could be attributed to the respondent. Although the respondent participated in the subsequent proceeding, yet the patent illegality in the same could always be agitated by him. Besides, although the respondent had categorically disputed the allegations in the charge sheet issued to him, no enquiry was conducted. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 180 and it was submitted that if the charges were factual and if they were denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gulf Goans Hotels Company Lim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... If the voucher for payment in cash was not signed by the Assistant Post Master, the respondent could not have made the payment. Looking at it from the other angle, once the Assistant Post Master signed the vouchers and sanctioned the payment, it was not open to the respondent to stop such payment. As such, no liability for any purported illegality in making such payment in cash could be attributed to the respondent. 9. This is also a case where two charge-sheets were issued to the respondent over the self-same cause of action. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the first charge sheet did not contain references to the relevant circular and the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, which prompted the issuance of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates