P. GEETHA PADMINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Original Petition is filed against the order dated 18.6.2015 in T.A.No.45 of 2013 on the file of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the Tribunal). The applicant before the Tribunal is the petitioner herein and the respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein, (hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance with their rank before the Tribunal).

(2.) Applicant is a retired Commercial Tax Officer and she retired from service on 31.1.2002. On the eve of her retirement, she was served with Ext P1 Memo of charges dated 18.1.2002 proposing to take disciplinary action against her for dereliction of duty, serious negligence and carelessness. The allegation was that, she accepted monthly returns of a registered dealer without proof of payment of admitted amount of tax. The dealer filed the returns for the months of April, 2001 on 15.5.2001, May, 2001 on 15.6.2001, June, 2001 on 17.7.2001 and July, 2001 on 16.8.2001. The amount covered by these returns comes to Rs.63,84,194.75. As per the Rules, the dealer has to file proof of payment of admitted tax along with the returns. But there was delay on the part of the applicant to detect the same and notice in Form 14 D was issued under the Kerala Sale Tax Rules belatedly.

(3.) When Ext P1 memo of charge was received, the petitioner sent Ext P2 reply before the 2nd respondent on 6.2.2002. She submitted in her representation that, her entire service was unblemished. She stated in the representation that, the staff did not bring to her notice that the dealer filed the returns without proof of payment of admitted amount of tax. Therefore, she admitted that there was inadvertent delay of 45 days on the part of the applicant to issue Form 14 D notice.