Sri Suresh Kumar, I R S vs. M/S Xl Health Corporation INDIA PVT LTD

Held

The Court held that the observations and strictures made by the High Court in its previous order, stating that the first appellate authority was "throwing to the winds, the principles of judicial discipline and binding order passed by higher appellate forum," and describing the behavior as "total callous, negligent and disrespectful" and that such public servants are "a threat to the society," were made without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Relying on the Apex Court's ruling in STATE OF KARNATAKA VS PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND OTHERS, the Court found these observations to be unwarranted and required them to be expunged. The Court also recalled the direction to pay the cost of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner's personal funds. The Court noted that the petitioner's contentions were not controverted by the respondents and the records did not indicate that the petitioner was put on notice or was aware of the court's sentiments. Therefore, the observations were struck off, and the direction for costs was recalled. The writ petition was disposed of in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Suresh Kumar, I.R.S., was the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Bengaluru North Commissionerate. While serving as Commissioner (Appeals), he passed orders in OIA Nos.165-177/2016. A coordinate bench of the High Court, while hearing W.P.No.37514/2017 concerning one of the petitioner's orders, noted that the issue had already been decided by the CESTAT, which had set aside the petitioner's findings. The Court observed that the petitioner had adopted the same reasoning despite the Tribunal's disapproval and the finality of the Tribunal's order. The Court also noted a statement in the objections filed by the department that there were no new facts necessitating a hearing, which the Court interpreted as a disregard for judicial discipline. Consequently, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioner, payable from his personal funds, and directed the Ministry of Revenue to take disciplinary action if costs were not deposited. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the imposition of costs and the direction for disciplinary action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in imposing a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioner from his personal account and observing that the petitioner is a threat to society, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and relying on the ruling in STATE OF KARNATAKA VS PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND OTHERS, (2007)3 SCC 587. 2. Whether the observations and strictures made by the High Court against the petitioner were warranted and legally sustainable, given that the petitioner was allegedly unaware of the proceedings and the court's sentiments, and that no notice was issued to him, as argued by the petitioner. The revenue or State did not controvert the contentions raised by the petitioner. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents in opposition to the petitioner's claims.