D. Shajahan vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes)

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 8833 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, dated

27.8.1997. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 30911 of 2006.

By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of reduction in rank for 3 years from the post of Assistant to that of Junior

Assistant. His future increments was also postponed for 3 years, which also will have the effect of affecting his pension. Against the punishment, the

petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, by statutory appeal, dated 24.9.97. Even before the appeal could be disposed of, the

petitioner moved the Tribunal with the original application. The petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order before the Tribunal.

On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a detailed reply affidavit, dated 17.11.99.

The petitioner was given a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules. There were 5 charges against the petitioner, including

temporary misappropriation of the Government funds, falsification of records and also unauthorised absence from 14.10.96 to 09.01.97. The

petitioner gave an explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tiruchirappalli. The Enquiry Officer, by

his report dated 23.5.97 found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation on the

enquiry report. The second respondent being the disciplinary authority rejected his explanation and imposed the punishment of reduction in rank.

The petitioner did not put any credible defence in the domestic enquiry, except the family problem and he is being unaware about the remitting

the amount collecting from the Traders immediately. In the reply affidavit, in paragraph No. 3, the respondents have averred as follows:

...The enquiry made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mailam-I along with the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer of Mailam-I Assessment Circle has brought to light that the applicant had not remitted an amount of Rs. 3,258/- referred to in the Table

above, into the Government account till 10.1.1997, which he had collected from the dealers on 12.12.1996. All the dealers referred to above have

given written statements before the Commercial Tax Officer, Mailamchandai-I that they had actually paid the amount to the applicant � Thiru

D.Shajahan, Sales Tax Collection Inspector � only on 12.12.1996. As the applicant failed to remit the amount of Rs. 3,258/- into the

Government account, the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Trichy Town in proceedings No. 1040/97-B4 dated 10.1.1997 placed the applicant

under suspension from Service with immediate effect. The applicant remitted the amount of Rs. 3,258/- into the Government account on

11.1.1997. The amount ought to have been remitted on 13.12.1996 was remitted only on 11.1.1997. Thus, the applicant has temporarily

misappropriated the Government money of Rs. 3,258/- for 29 days from 13.12.1996 to 10.1.1997. Further, all the five dealers have stated that

though the applicant had issued the receipts on 12.12.1996 itself, he came to their place of business on 6.1.1997 and demanded the original

receipt stating that the receipt was required for the purpose of audit. Believing that the request of the applicant was genuine, the dealers also

handed over the original receipts to the applicant. The applicant after having got back the original receipts has pasted all the six original receipts

with the duplicate receipts existing in the receipt book, as if no collection of money was made and no receipts were issued. Thus he had falsified

the Government records.

The defence put forth by the petitioner regarding the incident took place in the family being the root cause for the entire episode was duly

considered by the Enquiry Officer and he has given sufficient reasons for rejecting the defence. The argument that there was double punishment

given to the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even among the major penalty, the respondents have chosen only the reduction in rank as the penalty

and not any other capital punishment.

Once it is held that if there is a proper enquiry in which legal evidence is let in, the scope for judicial review over the penalty imposed is very

limited. This ratio has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Chairman and MD V.S.P. and Others Vs. Goparaju Sri

Prabhakara Hari Babu, . It is necessary to refer the following passages found in paras 20 and 21, which are as follows:

The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known

factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal; State of Bihar v.

Amrendra Kumar Mishra; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Uttar Haryana

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Dev.)

Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of

punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the

decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands

proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.)

In the light of the above, there is no case made out for interfering with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands

dismissed. No costs.