“Judge Cannot Usurp Role Of Disciplinary Authority”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Halting Disciplinary Proceedings Midway
Mehak Dhiman
24 Oct 2024 7:35 PM IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the order of the Single Judge, which had allowed the assessee's petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings midway, specifically at the stage when the enquiry had already been completed. The Division Bench of Justices G. Narendar and Kiranmayee Mandava observed that “………the Judge could not have usurped the role of...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the order of the Single Judge, which had allowed the assessee's petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings midway, specifically at the stage when the enquiry had already been completed.
The Division Bench of Justices G. Narendar and Kiranmayee Mandava observed that “………the Judge could not have usurped the role of the disciplinary authority and scuttled the proceedings midway. The statute vests the authority, either to impose or not to impose punishment after appreciating the matter on merits, on the disciplinary authority only. By the impugned order, this process has been preempted……..”
In this case, the assessee (respondent), appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in 1984 and promoted multiple times, faced disciplinary action in 2016 for alleged slack supervision and delays in processing a refund while serving as Commercial Tax Officer.
Despite the assessee's defense, the departmental inquiry has remained unresolved for over three years, preventing his promotion to Joint Commissioner of State Taxes. The assessee had filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the disciplinary proceedings against him while the department had dropped similar proceedings against three other officers on the same charges.
The Single Bench allowed the petition filed by the assessee and directed the department (appellant) to grant him all pensionary and retirement benefits as per the governing rules.
The department (appellant) has now challenged the judge's order, which quashed the disciplinary proceedings midway—specifically, at the stage when the inquiry had already been completed.
The report had been submitted to the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary authority had issued the second show cause notice enclosing the report and calling for his explanation.
The bench noted that the approach of the Judge amounts to usurping the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, which is impermissible. The Judge could not have usurped the role of the disciplinary authority and scuttled the proceedings midway.
The bench stated that “there was no adversarial order, resulting in no cause of action to canvass or maintain the Writ Petition. The mere pendency of the inquiry or the Writ Petitioner's apprehension of any adverse orders cannot be a ground to maintain the Writ Petition. It is apparent that no rights of the assessee (Writ Petitioner) have been abridged, nor has the inquiry resulted in altering the service conditions. In that context, the mere issuance of the show cause notice would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain and appreciate the Writ Petition. In the absence of any right of the litigant being adversely affected, we do not see how the Judge could have heard and ordered the Writ Petition.”
The bench concluded that the Judge has erred in taking up the role of the disciplinary authority and in attempting to substitute the opinion of the disciplinary authority with the opinion of this Court, which is impermissible.
The authority to impose or not impose any penalty, as provided under the rules, is in the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority, an action that has now been preempted by the impugned order. The Writ Petition itself was premature in the absence of any adverse impact on the rights or service conditions of the assessee (Writ Petitioner), added the bench.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal in part and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary/competent authority for consideration of the reply to be submitted by the assessee/Respondent.
Counsel for Respondent/ Assessee: J.N. Venkata Suresh Kumar
Case Title: The Chief Commissioner of State Tax and others v. Sri G Prabhakara Murthy
Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 729/2024
