IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23639 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. ANTONY, PEON, OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICE, 1ST CIRCLE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (D) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER I, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23639/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES NO.AII-42321/01/TX (ii) DATED 02/02/2002 OF R2. P2 : COPY OF STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NO.AII-42321/01/TX DATED 02/02/2002 OF R2. P3 : COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 25/05/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.AII-42321/01/TX DATED 01/06/2002 OF R2 APPOINTING THE INQUIRY AUTHORITY. P5 : COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED NIL. P6 : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.AII-42321/01/TX DATED 02/10/2002 OF R2. P7 : COPY OF ORDER NO.AII-42321/01/TX DATED 13/12/2002 OF R2. P8 : COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18/02/2003 OF THE PETITIONER. P9 : COPY OF ORDER NO.GO (Rt.) NO.385/04/TX DATED 10/06/2004 OF R1. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23639 of 2004 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P7 & P9 orders issued by respondents 2 & 1 respectively. 2. The petitioner is a Peon in the Sales Tax Department. He was issued Ext.P1 memo of charges and Ext.P2 statement of allegations, containing the allegation that while working at the Sales Tax Check Post, Govindapuram, in collusion with the Sales Tax Inspector, he allowed passage of a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-41/J 4946 through the Checkpost with 400 bags of cement although only 200 bags of cement was declared at the Sales Tax Checkpost. It is stated that by the said action, there was loss of revenue and that therefore a misconduct was committed. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 written statement denying the charges levelled against him. Enquiry was conducted and accordingly Ext.P5 report was submitted finding the petitioner guilty, but however recommending that the petitioner did not deserve to be inflicted with a major penalty, and that it WP(C) No.23639/2004 -2- would be sufficient if his next increment is barred for a period of three months without cumulative effect. On receipt of the report, he was issued Ext.P6 show cause notice, to which the petitioner filed his explanation. By Ext.P7, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect, which was imposed on the Sales Tax Inspector also. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal and that was rejected by the appellate authority as per Ext.P9 order dated 10/06/2004. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The facts as narrated above show that the procedural formalities in the matter of conduct of enquiry have all been complied with. Ext.P5 report of the enquiry officer shows that the enquiry officer has considered the allegations in the light of the evidence available and has found the petitioner guilty of the charges. These findings cannot be said to be perverse. After giving the petitioner an opportunity to give his explanation against the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority accepted the report and imposed punishment. No objection can be raised to the course adopted by the disciplinary authority. WP(C) No.23639/2004 -3- 4. The only further issue is whether the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. As is seen, the only punishment imposed on the petitioner is barring of increment with cumulative effect. While appreciating the proportionality of the punishment, one has to bear in mind the misconduct committed by the delinquent. In this case, the misconduct proved against the petitioner is that in collusion with the Sales Tax Inspector, the petitioner allowed the lorry, which had declared only 200 bags of cement while in fact it was carrying 400 bags of cement to pass the Checkpost. This certainly is a serious misconduct, and viewed the background of the gravity of the misconduct committed, this Court will not be justified in concluding that the punishment imposed is disproportionate requiring interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the same. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg