The High Court of Judicature at Madras, has in one of it's Orders dated 07 June 2016, has come to save an officer who has obeyed the orders of the High Court and has been dismissed for such obedience, besides having saved his department from contempt of court proceedings.
The officer has been charged on the grounds that, he "had acted with a malafide motive in the discharge of his official duties ...." and has "resorted to misleading the superior officer to cover up certain lapses committed by him."
The charge on the officer was also that he had "Issued irregular refund of tax..... without going in to the merits of the case as per High Court directions and without waiting for instructions of superior authorities." and has "Failed to discharge his duties as an Assessing officer diligently and to safeguard the interest of revenue." in addition to have "acted with negligence in the discharge of his duties"
Upon Enquiry, a few charges were proved , a few partly proved,and a few other were unproved. Interestingly, "the Government disagreed with couple of findings of the Enquiry officer and ordered unproved charges also to have been proved and the officer was dismissed from service.
TNPSC remarked that the officer had "hurriedly issued the refund vouchers to the dealer and acted against the interest of the Government" and had also added that "the Delinquent Officer did not address the issue to the Government Pleader and obtain his opinion,"
The petitioner among other things had defended that he "being an quasi-judicial authority, could not be processed against the departmental proceedings."
The petitioner contended that, the High Court of Madras by its order in a Writ petition had directed him to refund the excess amount. He further contended that he had written to his superior authorities and since no reply was forthcoming from his superiors, he had no alternative except to pass the orders in accordance with law. And he did.
The petitioner has stated to the court that, "he has done only his duty and had passed orders in compliance to the directions of the High Court."
The court found that the only reason given for his dismissal from service was that, he had "acted in hurried manner and passed the orders without waiting for instructions from the superior or getting opinion from the Government Pleader." In addition the court also held that "the Inquiry Officer has not offered clear-cut findings"
The court in it's Order declared that, "The conduct of the petitioner in proceeding ahead with passing orders of refund was in compliance with the order of this Court and it cannot said to be a reckless order. The petitioner is correct in contending that had he not passed the order then department would have to face contempt proceeding. There is nothing in the order which suggests that there has been any pecuniary loss to the Government." And hence, the court had stayed in it's Order that, "the order of dismissal from service is completely disproportionate to the conduct and the petitioner who had passed the orders to avoid contempt proceedings.
The court held that "It is not the case of the petitioner that the orders of refund were legally wrong orders or that the opinion of the Government or the public prosecutor would have been to the contrary or that the refund is not in accordance with law settled by this Court in various decisions."
The court has consequently set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and has remanded the matter back to the Enquiry Committee
Download Order
The officer has been charged on the grounds that, he "had acted with a malafide motive in the discharge of his official duties ...." and has "resorted to misleading the superior officer to cover up certain lapses committed by him."
The charge on the officer was also that he had "Issued irregular refund of tax..... without going in to the merits of the case as per High Court directions and without waiting for instructions of superior authorities." and has "Failed to discharge his duties as an Assessing officer diligently and to safeguard the interest of revenue." in addition to have "acted with negligence in the discharge of his duties"
Upon Enquiry, a few charges were proved , a few partly proved,and a few other were unproved. Interestingly, "the Government disagreed with couple of findings of the Enquiry officer and ordered unproved charges also to have been proved and the officer was dismissed from service.
TNPSC remarked that the officer had "hurriedly issued the refund vouchers to the dealer and acted against the interest of the Government" and had also added that "the Delinquent Officer did not address the issue to the Government Pleader and obtain his opinion,"
The petitioner among other things had defended that he "being an quasi-judicial authority, could not be processed against the departmental proceedings."
The petitioner contended that, the High Court of Madras by its order in a Writ petition had directed him to refund the excess amount. He further contended that he had written to his superior authorities and since no reply was forthcoming from his superiors, he had no alternative except to pass the orders in accordance with law. And he did.
The petitioner has stated to the court that, "he has done only his duty and had passed orders in compliance to the directions of the High Court."
The court found that the only reason given for his dismissal from service was that, he had "acted in hurried manner and passed the orders without waiting for instructions from the superior or getting opinion from the Government Pleader." In addition the court also held that "the Inquiry Officer has not offered clear-cut findings"
The court in it's Order declared that, "The conduct of the petitioner in proceeding ahead with passing orders of refund was in compliance with the order of this Court and it cannot said to be a reckless order. The petitioner is correct in contending that had he not passed the order then department would have to face contempt proceeding. There is nothing in the order which suggests that there has been any pecuniary loss to the Government." And hence, the court had stayed in it's Order that, "the order of dismissal from service is completely disproportionate to the conduct and the petitioner who had passed the orders to avoid contempt proceedings.
The court held that "It is not the case of the petitioner that the orders of refund were legally wrong orders or that the opinion of the Government or the public prosecutor would have been to the contrary or that the refund is not in accordance with law settled by this Court in various decisions."
The court has consequently set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and has remanded the matter back to the Enquiry Committee
Download Order
No comments:
Post a Comment