V.Ashok Kumar vs. The District Manager

Facts

The petitioner, a Salesman at a TASMAC shop, was subjected to an inspection on June 16, 2020, where it was alleged that a bottle of IMFL liquor was sold at a price exceeding the MRP. The petitioner allegedly admitted guilt. A show cause notice was issued on June 20, 2020, with a 7-day response period. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on June 27, 2020, denying the charge and stating he was compelled to sign. However, the respondent claims the reply was received on June 30, 2020, after the impugned order was passed on the same day, imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000 with 18% interest and GST. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that while there was a delay of three days in the petitioner's reply reaching the respondent's office, the impugned order was passed on the very same day the reply was submitted to the 'tapal section'. The Court found that to provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner before passing a final order, the reply should be taken into account. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the respondent TASMAC to consider the petitioner's reply dated 27.06.2020, which was submitted on 30.06.2020, and pass a revised final order on merits and in accordance with law within two weeks. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice require consideration of a submitted reply, even if there is a minor delay in its official receipt, before passing a final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.06.2020, imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000 with interest and GST, is liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply dated 27.06.2020, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he had submitted a reply on 27.06.2020 denying the charge, but it was not considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. He claimed he was compelled to sign the charge sheet and denied the sale at an inflated price. The order was therefore passed without considering his explanation. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner's reply dated 27.06.2020 was not filed in the respondent's office on or before 27.06.2020, but was instead submitted to the 'tapal section' only on 30.06.2020. As the impugned order was passed on the same day, the reply could not be taken into account, and thus the respondent was not at fault for its non-consideration.