Sapan Kumar Sontakey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Challenging the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department and it is stated by the petitioner that on the ground that petitioner has conducted certain quasi judicial proceedings against M/s Hajarilal Sandeep Kumar Kotwali and has granted adjustment in the matter of payment of Tax in an illegal manner, departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner challenged the suspension before this Court and this Court found that the appeal is pending before the competent authority. Accordingly, petition was disposed of on 7.4.2010 directing the competent authority to decide the appeal. The appeal having been rejected by the impugned order AnnexureP1, petitioner is again before this Court.

Shri B.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has acted in accordance with law and the order passed on the assessment of the petitioner for refund is in accordance with requirement of Section 14 (c ) of the M.P. Vat Act and, therefore, the suspension is illegal.

Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned counsel for the State points out that the suspension is not challenged on the ground of any statutory rule or regulation being violated, the suspension is challenged on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and, therefore, he cannot be suspended.

Accordingly, Smt. Dubey submits that this aspect of the matter has to be considered in the pending enquiry and at this stage, interference is not warranted.

Smt. Dubey submits that all these questions have been considered by the appellate authority and a detailed order has been passed. The appellate authority found that the petitioner is responsible for the lapse and he has been proceeded against. Having heard learned counsel fore the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner wants interference on the ground that the allegations levelled against him are not correct. By appreciating the merit of the matter, this Court cannot interfere in the matter at this stage when the enquiry is pending. It is the duty of the respondents, the competent authority to consider all these questions and take action. Once the departmental enquiry is pending and no statutory rule or regulation is found to be violated in suspending the petitioner, interference into the matter by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is dismissed.