A.Govindasamy vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced subsistence allowance at 75% under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. The Court reasoned that the Act clearly provides for enhanced subsistence allowance after 90 days of suspension, and this enhanced rate can only be denied if the delay in proceedings is directly attributable to the employee. In this case, the respondents failed to provide any averment or evidence to suggest that the petitioner caused any delay. The Court noted the significant delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which were only contemplated on November 21, 2024, despite the criminal case being registered on July 5, 2023. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Department appeared to have violated the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department, regarding the timely initiation and conclusion of departmental proceedings. The Court found it unfortunate that the investigation in the trap case had not concluded for three years. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, a State Tax Officer, was arrested on July 5, 2023, for allegedly demanding and receiving Rs. 2,000 from a taxpayer for processing a GST registration certificate. A case was registered under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension on July 12, 2023. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking enhancement of his subsistence allowance from 50% to 75%, as provided under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. The respondents contended that the petitioner was paid 50% subsistence allowance as per Rule 53(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules and was not eligible for enhanced allowance as disciplinary proceedings were pending. A charge memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and an inquiry officer appointed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced subsistence allowance at 75% under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, given that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated late and are pending. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, mandates payment of 75% subsistence allowance after 90 days of suspension, unless the delay in proceedings is attributable to the employee. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated belatedly on November 21, 2024, long after the criminal case was registered on July 5, 2023. The petitioner also relied on G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.81, Human Resources Management Department, which prescribe guidelines for simultaneous initiation and timely conclusion of departmental proceedings. The petitioner asserted that the respondents failed to demonstrate any delay caused by him. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was paid 50% subsistence allowance as per Rule 53(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules and was not eligible for enhanced allowance because disciplinary proceedings were pending. They submitted that a charge memo had been issued and an inquiry officer appointed, and the final report had not yet been filed.