WP/12671/2005 of Mohd.Yousuf, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal on 23 December 2005

1. Government of A.P. rep.

by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT)

Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. … Respondents And three others Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N.Bharat Babu Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Services II

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

W.P.No.12671 OF 2005

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

Aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 3-2-2005dismissing O.A.No.1914 of 2004, the present writ petition is filed.

Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that while the petitioner wasworking as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, at the Madnoor Check Post inNizamabad District, a surprise check was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureauteam on 24.3.1995 and two persons were found in possession of Rs.7,896/- andRs.940/- respectively, representing the amounts payable to the department.Departmental proceedings were initiated against all the staff working at the checkpost including the petitioner, they were all placed under suspension by proceedingsdated 31.7.1995, an enquiry officer was appointed on 18.9.1995 to conduct adetailed enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted a report on 3.10.1996 holding thatcharge No.3 levelled against the petitioner had been proved and charges 4 to 8levelled against the other Assistant Commercial Tax Officer Sri N.Gangadhar hadalso been proved.

The competent authority, (Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), by order dated 3.10.1986 imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments withcumulative effect on the petitioner, the other Assistant Commercial Tax Officer andboth the Commercial Tax Inspectors. The petitioner preferred an appeal to theCommissioner of Commercial Taxes. During the pendency of the appeal, theCommissioner issued show cause notices dated 13.12.1996 directing the petitionerand other staff members to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal fromservice should not be inflicted on them. These show cause notices were subjectmatter of challenge, in O.A.349 of 1997 and batch, before the A.P. AdministrativeTribunal. The O.A. filed by the petitioner was disposed of by order dated 24.2.2003directing him to submit his explanation and directing the Commissioner to passappropriate orders thereon and on the appeal filed against the order dated3.10.1996. The Tribunal further observed that any order passed adverse to thepetitioner’s interest should not be given effect to for a period of two weeks to enablehim to seek his remedies.

The 2[nd] respondent, (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), is said to haveissued another show cause notice dated 24.7.2003 directing the petitioner to showcause as to why punishment of removal from service should not be inflicted on him.Contending that the 2[nd] respondent, the appellate authority, was prejudiced againsthim and the other staff members O.A.No.6057 of 2003 was filed challenging the saidshow cause notice. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. on 20.10.2003, setting aside theshow cause notice dated 24.7.2003 and directing the respondents to passappropriate orders in accordance with its earlier directions passed on 24.2.2003 inO.A.No.349 of 1997.

The commercial tax inspectors had earlier filed O.A.880 of 1997 and theTribunal by order dated 26.8.2003 is said to have quashed the proceedings dated13.12.1996 holding that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise suo motupower vested under Rule 40(2) of the C.C.C.A. Rules and that he could not haveexercised the power before expiry of the period of limitation for appeal as providedunder the rules i.e., 3 months. The Tribunal granted liberty to the commissioner toissue fresh show cause notice in accordance with rules. The commissioner is said tohave again confirmed the punishment against all the officers against whom chargesheets had been issued.

reduction to a lower post on the petitioner. Punishment of dismissal from service wasimposed on Sri N.Gangadhar and in respect of the two commercial tax inspectors,the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, imposed bythe deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, was confirmed by the Commissioner.Petitioner filed O.A.No.1914 of 2004 challenging the order of reversion dated30.1.2004 and Sri N.Gangadhar filed O.A.989 of 2004 challenging the order ofdismissal dated 24.1.2004. Both the O.A. were dismissed by a common order dated3.2.2005. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Sri N.Gangadhar, the otherAssistant commercial tax officer, filed W.P.No.2836 of 2005 and this court, by orderdated 26.4.2005, set aside the order of the Tribunal, remitted the matter to thecommissioner of commercial taxes for fresh consideration and directed thecommissioner to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties concerned andtaking into consideration the order passed by him in respect of two similarly situatedemployees, (the two commercial tax inspectors), in respect of whom the punishmentawarded by the original authority, of stoppage of two increments with cumulativeeffect, had been confirmed.

In the present writ petition, filed challenging the order of the A.P. AdministrativeTribunal in O.A.No.1914 of 2004 dated 3.2.2005, the petitioner would contend thatsince a common order was passed by the Tribunal in O.A.989 of 2004 andO.A.No.1914 of 2004 and this Court, by order in W.P.No.2836 of 2005 dated26.4.2005, had set aside the order passed in O.A.No.989 of 2004, this court wouldbe pleased to pass a similar order in the present writ petition also.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader.

As is clear from the facts stated above, the competent authority had imposeddifferent punishments, on the employees working in the check post at Madnoor,which were either confirmed or modified in appeal. While the appellate authorityconfirmed the punishment, of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect,imposed on the two commercial tax inspectors, and had imposed the punishment ofdismissal on N. Gangadhar, in respect of the petitioner an order of reversion waspassed.

Since a common order was passed in both the O.As. filed by the petitionerand Sri N.Gangadhar, and as the common order of the Tribunal, was set aside bythis Court, in one of the two O.As, the petitioner is entitled for a similar order in the present writ petition.

As a result, the order in O.A.1914 of 2004 is set aside and the matter isremitted to the Commissioner of commercial taxes for fresh consideration and the2[nd] respondent Commissioner of commercial taxes shall pass appropriate ordersafter hearing the parties concerned and taking into consideration the orders passedby him in respect of the two similarly situated employees in respect of whom thepunishment awarded by the original authority was confirmed. This exercise shall bedone within a period of two month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt. . .2005

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J.Chelameswar, J

____________________ Ramesh

Ranganathan, J

asp