LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-41

LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI Vs. NARAIN SINGH

Decided On July 04, 2008
LT.GOVERNOR OF DELHI Appellant
V/S
NARAIN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent worked as Sales Tax Officer/sreo in the Sales-Tax Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (petitioners herein ). He has since retired from service. In his capacity as Sales Tax Officer, he was passing assessment orders in respect of sales tax returns filed before him by different assesses. The assessment orders passed in respect of one dealer, namely, M/s. New Friends and company (Pvt.) Ltd. , recoiled on him inasmuch as it led to the issuance of charge sheet dated 22. 4. 2004 by the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)Rules. Investigating Officer was appointed, who initiated the proceedings sometime in November 2004 While this inquiry was still in progress, the respondent filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of holding inquiry against him on the ground of delay. This application has been allowed by the Tribunal vide its orders dated 7. 2. 2006 and challenging that order the present petition has been filed by the employer.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding with the respective contentions, it would be necessary to take stock of the facts in some detail.

(3.) THE respondent herein was appointed in Grade-II of Delhi Administration subordinate Services with effect from 27. 8. 1969. In May 1993, he was promoted as DANICS (Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Services) Officer and was posted in Sales Tax department as Sales Tax Officer. While functioning as such in Ward No. 69, Delhi, the respondent assessed the sales tax returns of M/s. New friends and Company (Pvt.) Ltd. in the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Though no specific dates of passing these assessment orders are given, it is clear that these assessment orders were passed between the year 1991 and 1994. Further, on 21. 11. 1996, he also prescribed a surety of Rs. 1 lakh under each enactment, i. e. Delhi Sales Tax Act etc. , compliance whereof was to be made by the assessee by 3. 12. 1996. As per the department, the respondent did not take timely action to get the surety or cancel the registration certificate of the assessee/dealer.