Telangana High Court
K.Venkateswarlu, vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.22712 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring
the action of 2nd respondent in imposing major punishment of stoppage
of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner
herein vide orders in CCTs Ref.No.V1/910/2009 dated 17.06.2016 and
consequential confirmation orders of the 1st respondent in Memo
No.20614/Vig-II(1)/2016 dated 14.03.2017 as illegal and arbitrary and
contrary to the orders of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.No.3106 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016 and consequently set aside the
same.
2. Heard Mr. SannapaneniLohit, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the writ affidavit is that
the petitioner while working as Deputy Commerical Tax Officer, Warangal
Circle, in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the then
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, served Articles of
Charge on the petitioner vide proceedings in CCTS Reference
No.V1/910/2009 dated 28.06.2011 along with statement of imputation
of misconduct in support of the charges, and list of documents, in
Annexures II, and III, and proposing to hold enquiry in accordance with
the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of APCS(CCA) Rules, 1991 and
directed him to submit explanation; that as per the articles of charge it
was alleged that while he was working as DCTO, Warangal during
09.07.2008 to 11.08.2009, he showed gross negligence in duty and
committed irregularities and issued misleading certificate to one dealer
namely M/s AddankiVenkateswarluBeedi leaves contractor, Warangal
who was on the rolls of CTO, Warangal, and that he was not a VAT dealer
prior to 01.07.2008 and that he was only a TOT general deal dealer upto
30.09.2006 and that he only paid a total tax of Rs.38,510/- at 1% of
Rs.38,50,920 for the quarter upto 30.09.2006 while filing TOT original
returns in the month of November 2006 and that thereafter on
06.12.2008 i.e., after lapse of 2 years the said dealer appeared before the
petitioner and offered to pay VAT tax i.e., the differential tax @ 3% on
turnover in regard to quarter ending on 30.09.2006 already shown under
general registration certificate in 2006-07; that the petitioner committed
serious lapse and that the same is fortified by the certificate of CTO,
Warangal dated 04.11.2008 which is silent about effective date of VAT
registration of said dealer and that in those circumstances, the petitioner
felt that the said dealer is VAT dealer as his turnover exceeded
Rs.10,00,000/- for the months July to September 2006 and as per office
order of CTO Warangal dated 30.08.2008, the DTCO is competent
collection authority of Profession Tax and Tax under AP VAT Act and
further the collection of said Tax is within the knowledge of the then
CTO, Warangal, and that the same can be evidenced from the CTOs letter
dated 24.04.2009 addressed to DC(CT) Warangal and further that on the
same allegation of the loss of revenue earlier a charge memo was issued
and when the same was replied with all facts, the said memo was closed;
that not being satisfied with the petitioner's response to the said charge
memo/notice, the then CCT appointed the then Deputy Commissioner
(CT), Warangal as enquiry officer and the enquiry officer submitted his
report vide Rc.No.A10/101/2012 dated 02.0.2012 holding that only
charge No.1 alone is proved with specific observation that there was no
loss of revenue and charges II to IV are not proved; that the disciplinary
authority disagreeing with the findings of enquiry officer served a
disagreement factor on the petitioner stating that all charges made
against the petitioner were held proved except to the extent of charge of
loss of revenue due to the interest levied on dealer and accordingly vide
his CCTS reference dated 29.05.2012 directed the petitioner to submit
his reply and accordingly the petitioner submitted his reply/explanation
to the same reiterating his earlier reply; that the then CCT vide
proceedings dated 19.01.2013 imposed major punishment of stoppage of
two annual grade increments with cumulative effect without appreciating
the evidence on record in right perspective; and that the petitioner filed
appeal before the Government on 03.04.2013 and vide order in memo
dated 29.10.2013, the appeal was dismissed by affirming the order of the
then CCT; that questioning the punishment, the petitioner filed
O.A.No.3106 of 2014 before the APAT and by judgment dated 19.04.2016
in the OA, the Tribunal has set aside the major punishment imposed vide
proceedings dated 10.01.2013 of the 2nd respondent as affirmed by the
1st respondent therein vide Memo dated 29.10.2013 and remitted the
matter back to the 2nd respondent for imposition of lesser punishment
keeping in view the fact that the action against CTO Warangal against
whom similar allegations were attributed were dropped through CCTS
reference dated 14.03.2011 by specifically making an observation that no
malafides are present on his part and that only negligence is attributed to
the petitioner in the charges and that the respondents herein ought to
have taken a lenient view in the matter of imposition of the punishment
especially in the light of the fact that they have totally exonerated the
CTO and further the Tribunal held that the punishment imposed is
disproportional to the misconduct attributed to the petitioner; that the
petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent vide letter dated
30.04.2016 requesting to drop the charges,; that the 2nd respondent
without considering the orders of the APAT in right perspective, vide
proceedings in CCTS Reference dated 17.06.2016 decided to reduce the
punishment orders from withholding of stoppage of two annual grade
increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of one annual grade
increment with cumulative effect without assigning any reasons other
than mentioning of orders of APAT; that questioning the said orders in
CCTS reference dated 17.06.2016, the petitioner filed appeal before 1st
respondent on 14.09.2016 to consider his case sympathetically and to
reduce his punishment to minor penalty by specifically stating that all
persons involved right from CTO to the ADC have been exonerated and
that the Hon'ble High Court also upheld the case of the dealer; that to the
surprise of the petitioner, the 1st respondent without application of
judicious mind, rejected the appeal dated 09.01.2017 and thereby
affirmed the major penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment
with cumulative effect vide proceedings in Memo dated 14.03.2017; that
aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions on
the lines of the writ affidavit would submit that the orders of imposing
major penalty is contradiction to the observations made by APAT in the
order dated 29.04.2016 in OA No.3106 of 2014; that there is no illegality
in collecting tax from the said dealer on 06.12.2008 and that the same
was done under genuine and bonafide impression and belief that the said
dealer is VAT dealer and that collection of said tax amount is in the
interest of revenue to the State; that there is no loss to state exchequer in
revenue due to the interest levied on the said dealer and therefore the
2ndrespondent is not justified either in law or on facts in imposing major
punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect
against the petitioner; that there is no evidence to show that the
petitioner collected the said Tax and issued certificate with malafide
intention to impose such major punishment; that as per Section 14 of the
AP VAT Act 2005 read with Section 2(4) of the AP VAT Rules, credit of
input tax shall be admissible only on the strength of the original copy of
tax invoice in prescribed format and not on the strength of the kind of
certificate issued by petitioner which is nothing but a cash certificate;
that none of the allegations made against the petitioner in the articles of
charge would amount to lack of integrity and unbecoming of government
servant; that the respondents passed the impugned orders in
contradiction to the observations made by the Tribunal in OA No.3106 of
2014 dated 29.04.2016 wherein it was specifically observed that
malafides are absent on the petitioner's part and that only negligence is
attributed in the charges; and that the imposition of major punishment of
cumulative stoppage of one annual grade increment is disproportionate
to the charges leveled against the petitioner.
5. Learned Government Pleader for revenue while drawing attention to
the charges leveled against the petitioner, and also the order passed by
the Tribunal, and the impugned orders dated 17.06.2016 of the 2nd
respondent, and 14.03.2017 of the 1st respondent, would submit that the
respondents have appreciated the matter in proper perspective and
imposed lesser punishment against the petitioner, and the said orders do
not suffer from any illegality or impropriety as alleged and therefore there
is no merit in the writ petition.
6. Having considered rival submissions, and perusing the material on
record, the charges leveled against the petitioner, and also the orders
passed by the Tribunal in OA No.3106 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016, it is
pertinent to note that the petitioner was charged with four articles of
charge. The purport of the charges is that the petitioner has shown
negligence to his duties and committed irregularity while issuing cash
receipt dated 06.12.2008 for Rs.1,15,529 for the tax pertaining to the
year 2006 in respect of M/s AddankiVenkateswarlu, Beedi Leaves
contractor who is on the rolls of CTO, when an appeal filed by M/s
AddankiVenkateswarlu is pending before the authorities, so as to help
him in the said appeal. The enquiry officer who was the then Deputy
Commissioner (CT) enquired into the matter and held that only charge
No.1 was proved, and the other charges as not proved. The disciplinary
authority has putforth a dissent note and held that all charges as proved
and imposed major punishment of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect and the same was affirmed by the appellate authority.
The petitioner preferred Original Application before the Tribunal in OA
No.3106 of 2014, and the Tribunal vide order 29.04.2016 adjudicated the
matter after hearing both the parties and also considering the counter
affidavit filed before the Tribunal and held that the petitioner should have
enquired with the CTO before accepting the tax paid by the dealer as to
whether he can receive that amount and issue receipt for the same,
however without doing so he accepted the amount and remitted it to the
Government account, and that the petitioner could not understand the
motive behind the tax paid by the dealer against whom the appeal is
pending. It is further pertinent to note that the Tribunal had observed
that malafides are lacking on the part of petitioner and further the CTO
was totally exonerated for the similar charges, and therefore the
punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative
effect is shockingly disproportionate, and remitted the matter back
to the 2nd respondent for taking a lenient view by imposing a lesser
punishment keeping in view that the action against CTO, Warangal
against whom similar allegations were attributed were dropped
through CCTS reference No.VI/910/2009-II dated 14.03.2011.
Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated
17.06.2016 imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual
increment with cumulative effect and the same was affirmed by the 1st
respondent vide impugned order dated 14.03.2017. It may be noted that
vide the impugned order dated 17.06.2016, it can be seen that the
enquiry officer gave a finding that the petitioner did not verify whether
the dealer was on the rolls of the department and issued the certificate
that is supposed to be issued by VAT administrating authority and
though the petitioner collected differential tax and issued certificate in
good faith in the interest of Government revenue, it caused the appellate
authority to allow appeal instead of remanding the matter to the
assessing authority and therefore the charge No.1 was proved against the
petitioner; and the other three charges were held to be not proved. It can
be seen from the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Tribunal in OA
No.3106 of 2014, that there are no malafides on the part of the
petitioner, and therefore the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade
increments with cumulative effect is shockingly disproportionate, more so
when the respondent authorities have totally taken a different view in the
case of CTO by dropping the charges and exonerating him.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the
impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.06.2016, as affirmed by
the order of 1st respondent, dated 14.03.2017. No costs. Miscellaneous
petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka
10th July, 2024
ksm
