- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed Tax Collector in Zila Panchayat on 2.9.1975, thereafter was promoted as Tax Superintendent in 1995. The service conditions of the petitioner is governed by the Zila Panchayat Employees Service Regulations, 1970. After the creation of District Sant Kabir Nagar, petitioner's services was transferred to Zila Panchayat, Sant Kabir Nagar in 1997.
(2.) FOR the year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 the Auditor General submitted audit objection dated 1.6.2006 that the Zila Panchayat incurred loss of Rs. 8.93 lacs in the financial year 1998 -99 for reason of irregularities in assessment of tax by the then official. Pursuant to the audit report, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.6.2008 and a charge -sheet dated 11.2.2009 was issued to the petitioner comprising of three charges. The main charge against the petitioner was charge no. 1 and the other two charges are not relevant being trivial in nature. The arguments were advanced by the parties pertaining to charge no. 1 only.
(3.) THE allegations of charge no. 1 is that while the petitioner was working on the post of revenue inspector the Senior Deputy Auditor General, Local Bodies vide letter dated 1.6.2006 incorporated audit para for causing loss of Rs. 8.93 lacs to Zila Panchayat, thus, the petitioner was responsible for the irregularities in tax assessment, in support of the charge the copy of the audit objection communicated by letter dated 1.5.2006 was supplied. The petitioner in his reply denied the allegations of charge no. 1, stating that assessment of tax is provided under the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Imposition, Assessment and Calculation of Circumstances and Property Tax) Rules 1994, the Mukhya Adhikari/Upper Mukhya Adhikari is the competent authority for assessment of tax and since there was no official available with the Zila Panchayat as Karya Adhikari, thus, vide order dated 29.01.2011, passed by the Chairman, petitioner was assigned the work as Tax Inspector, thus, the petitioner was not working unauthorizedly or illegally and as regards audit objection for the year 1998 -99, the procedure prescribed for assessment of tax as per 1994 Rules was strictly complied with, the assessee were put to notice and after considering their reply the assessment was carried out. The audit objection was made after perusing the list contained in the survey register whereas, the actual documents pertaining to survey was not perused, thus, the audit objection that 158 assessees on assessment were not imposed tax, is wrong, as they were exempted, under various categories, from payment of tax.;