IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 18809 of 1997(L) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.K. SATHYAPPAN, SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), SALES TAX, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE BOARD OF REVENUE (TAXES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES-I). 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 18809 of 1997 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.33661 OF 1997 IN O.P.NO.18809 OF 1997 CLOSED. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DT.13.1.1994 ISSUED BY R1 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT.19.2.94. EXT.P3; COPY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DT.28.4.94 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P5; COPY OF REPRSENTATION DT.12.1.95 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.7.2.95 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.8.2.95 SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.24.2.95 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.22.1.96 PASSED BY R1 BARRING ONE INCREMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF APPEAL DT.28.2.96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.29.2.96 ISSUED BYU R1 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF REPLY DT.23.3.96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT-P11 NOTICE. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) 316/97/TD DT.21.6.97 ISSUED BY THE R2 REJECTING EXT.P10 APPEAL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.18809 OF 1997 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, a Sales Tax Inspector in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence, Agricultural Income Tax and sales Tax, Ernakulam, for certain allegations of misconduct allegedly committed by him, while he was working in the Sales Tax Check Post, Muthanga. The same culminated in Ext.P9 order of the 1st respondent by imposing punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner's appeal against that order was dismissed by the 2nd respondent – Appellate Authority, by Ext.P13 order. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P11 notice to the petitioner proposing to regularise the period of suspension of the petitioner so as to be liable to be counted only for pension. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9, P13 and as also Ext.P11 orders. 2. Although the entire proceedings is under challenge, I am of opinion that the petitioner's contention regarding violation O.P.NO.18809/1997 2 of principles of natural justice, in so far as the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before passing Ext.P9 order, has to be upheld. In the original petition, the petitioner has specifically contended that before passing Ext.P9 order, the report of the Enquiry Officer was not even shown to the petitioner. Although a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the said specific averment of the petitioner has not been controverted. Therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed on that ground alone. Accordingly, Exts.P9 and P13 orders are quashed. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with the law from the stage of receipt of the enquriy report from the Enquiry Officer. The 1st respondent shall furnish the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report directing the petitioner to submit his representation with regard to the findings in the enquriy report. After receipt of the same, final orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent as to whether the 1st respondent accepts the findings of the enquiry officer or not after considering the representation of the petitioner. If the 1st respondent agrees O.P.NO.18809/1997 3 with the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner shall be afforded another opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment and the disciplinary proceedings shall be finalised accordingly. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.NO.18809/1997 4