Anjali Chaurasiya vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. , Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

Facts

The appellant, Anjali Chaurasiya, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Barabanki, intercepted a vehicle transporting metallic scrap disguised as plastic scrap and levied a penalty of Rs. 90,000/-. Subsequently, an anonymous complaint was filed alleging that the penalty should have been imposed on the entire goods as metallic scrap, not just the 2.5 MT identified. Based on this anonymous complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, leading to her suspension. The appellant challenged the suspension order by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge, in an interim order dated 28.11.2022, granted the State liberty to proceed with disciplinary proceedings and to post the appellant at any place, considering the pending proceedings. The appellant filed the present intra-court appeal against this liberty granted to the respondents.

Held

The Court held that the interim order dated 28.11.2022, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed with disciplinary proceedings and post the appellant at any place, was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, and thus, the special appeal was maintainable. The Court reasoned that while the order allowed disciplinary proceedings to continue, it did not finally decide the writ petition. However, upon examining the merits of the liberty granted, the Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on an anonymous complaint and a mere suspicion that the assessee deposited the penalty quickly. Citing Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, the Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on vague information, and suspicion has no role. Since the respondents had allowed the appellant's penalty order to attain finality by not challenging it, initiating disciplinary proceedings based on such grounds appeared to be unjustified. Therefore, the liberty granted to the respondents to proceed with disciplinary proceedings and post the appellant was set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed with disciplinary proceedings and post the appellant at any place, constitutes a 'judgment' within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, making it amenable to a special appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: - The appellant argued that the interim order has the "trappings of finality" because it allows disciplinary proceedings to continue and the appellant to be transferred. If the disciplinary proceedings result in punishment, the writ petition would become infructuous. - The appellant contended that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on vague and indefinite information, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India. The anonymous complaint lacked particulars, and the respondents had taken a conscious decision not to challenge the appellant's penalty order, allowing it to attain finality. - The appellant relied on Government Orders that aim to protect officers from frivolous and anonymous complaints. Respondent's Arguments: - The respondent argued that the order under appeal is an interlocutory order, not a 'judgment' as defined under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, and therefore, the intra-court appeal is not maintainable.