STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. VIDYA PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal by the State of Punjab under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from an order, dated February 5, 1968, by a learned Single Judge, the Respondent, Vidya Parkash, was appointed Head Assistant on July 14, 1949, by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner of Punjab. He was promoted as an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on and from October 31, 1956, but was reverted to his substantive post on March 4, 1958. The Respondent made a grievance on this account also in his petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but the learned Single Judge has dismissed his prayer in this respect on the ground that he did not make a grievance in this regard for a number of years until he filed his petition in this Court on February 16, 1966, which claim was, therefore, not available to him on account of laches. The Respondent has taken no steps against this order of the learned Single Judge and so this part of the case of the Respondent is no longer a matter of controversy. Subsequently he was again promoted Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on and from February 2, 1960.

(2.) ON January 19, 1963, he was suspended from service and on March 25, 1963, was served on him a charge -sheet, dated March 13, 1963 (Annexure D.1) with the show -cause notice, Annexure D. There are two charges referred to in the charge -sheet Annexure D.1. Under the first charge the allegation was that, while Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer at Ludhiana, the Respondent decided the case of assessment for the year 1960 -61 of the firm Aggarwal Textile Mills by splitting up the amount of the gross turnover into two parts so as to bring it below Rs. 5,00,000 in each case, whereas the total was in excess of Rs. 5,00,000, thus bringing the case of the assessment of the particular firm within his pecuniary jurisdiction. And in that way he acted improperly and with ulterior motive in making the assessment of the case of that firm. In the second charge, exactly a similar allegation was made in regard to another firm Sunder Singh -Gurcharan Singh by splitting up the assessment into two parts so as to bring the amount of each within his pecuniary jurisdiction, which, it was said, he had done with ulterior motive. He was asked, within fifteen days, to show -cause against the correctness or otherwise of the charges against him. The notice also enquired whether the Respondent desired to be heard in person. It informed him that facilities to inspect the records and documents would be made available to him for purposes of his defence. According to paragraph 7 of his petition, the Respondent said in reply to the show -cause notice and the charge -sheet that he had done nothing illegal or irregular, as he had followed the established practice of the department and cited executive instructions on the subject, which he had followed while making the assessments. He also relied, in support of his case, on Madan Lal Arora v. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1565.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge has accepted the petition of the Respondent on this ground that once a formal enquiry was started against him by service of statement of allegations and charges, the Appellant, the State Government, could not then drop the enquiry and proceed to revert him to his substantive post, leaving the stigma of the allegations and the charges against him so as to affect his future career in service including obviously his future chances of promotion. The learned Judge, therefore, quashed the order of reversion as also the subsequent orders consequent upon that order. This, as stated, is an appeal against the order of the learned Judge by the State.