Anjali Chaurasia vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Govt Of U.P. Civil Sectt Lko And 5 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Anjali Chaurasia, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, intercepted a vehicle on 19.11.2020. Discrepancies were found in the vehicle's e-way bill and invoice regarding the weight and type of goods (metal scrap vs. plastic scrap). The petitioner detained the vehicle and issued a demand notice, leading to the owner paying Rs. 90,250/- in tax and penalty on the same day. Subsequently, a complaint was received against the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry and a technical inquiry report indicated that physical verification was not properly conducted, evidence might have been fabricated, and the transaction was suspicious, suggesting collusion. Based on these reports, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 21.04.2022.

Held

The Court held that the preliminary and technical inquiry reports indicated grave misconduct by the petitioner, justifying her suspension. The Court found no violation of government orders regarding inquiries, as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on the departmental inquiry reports, not solely on the complaint. The Court noted that the petitioner was associated with the preliminary inquiry and that the reports detailed her alleged misconduct, including discrepancies in physical verification, manipulation of evidence, and a suspiciously quick payment of tax and penalty. The Court also found that the suspension order, under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, was passed for valid and cogent reasons to facilitate a fair and impartial disciplinary inquiry. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, directing the department to conclude the inquiry expeditiously within four months, subject to the petitioner's cooperation, and emphasizing that the inquiry officer should remain uninfluenced by the Court's observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.04.2022, placing the petitioner under suspension, is liable to be quashed, considering the allegations of grave misconduct and the findings of the preliminary and technical inquiry reports? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and administrative law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the suspension order was passed without proper adherence to procedural norms, particularly concerning the complaint which lacked an affidavit. She argued that the preliminary inquiry reports were flawed and that the suspension was a punitive measure rather than a procedural one. She relied on government orders regarding inquiries and precedents concerning judicial officers. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the preliminary and technical inquiry reports revealed grave misconduct, justifying the suspension. They asserted that the inquiry was initiated based on these reports, not solely on the complaint, and that the petitioner was provided with opportunities to respond. They maintained that suspension is a procedural step to facilitate a fair inquiry and that the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, permit such action.