In a significant judgement, the Allahabad High Court (HC) quashed the proceedings against VAT Commissioner and held that disciplinary proceedings can’t be initiated merely on suspicion.
Anjali Chaurasiya, the petitioner challenged the order of a Single Judge which granting liberty to the respondents/State to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the order and also to post the writ petitioner at any place, because disciplinary proceedings are pending against her.
The appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that if the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order dated 21.04.2022 based onan anonymous complaint are completed and the appellant/writ petitioner is punished, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant would ultimately become infructuous.
The appellant, while working as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad,Barabanki, intercepted a vehicle, bearing registration No. HR38AA6286 and found that there was metallic scrap of 2.5 M.T. goods, which was held undisclosed in the garb of the plastic scraps being transported through the aforesaid vehicle and as such, the appellant has exercised its quasi-judicial powers and after due process of law, levied a penalty of Rs.90,000/-.
One Raj Kumar has made an anonymous complaint, alleging that metallic scrap was being transported by the said vehicle, but the appellant only levied a penalty treating that to be only 2.5 MT of goods of metallic scrap rather than imposing a penalty on the entire goods asmetallic scrap. The respondents took cognizance of the said anonymous complaint and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and suspended the appellant.
The Court viewed that a direction issued by the Single Judge in the course of the hearing of a writ petition, calling for the filing of a counter and a rejoinder or the completion of pleadings is a direction of a procedural nature, in aid of the ultimate progression of the case.
A purely procedural direction of calling for a counter affidavit and rejoinder would not be amenable to a special appeal since it decides no rights and does not affect the vital and substantive rights of parties.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Subhash Vidyarthi and Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that the Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information which is vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter.
It was held that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant have been initiated merely because the assessee has deposited the penalty within a very short period which raised suspicion about the penalty order passed by the appellant.
While allowing the appeal, the Court held that “the respondents ought not to have been given liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and to post her anywhere considering the facts that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against her.” The disciplinary proceedings which are pending againstthe petitioner were set-aside.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
