S GANAPATHY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, viz. , the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 23. 7. 2004. Under the impugned order, the first respondent has passed an order of reversion against the petitioner reverting him as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer from deputy Commercial Tax Officer and posted him as Superintendent in the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer-I, Tuticorin.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, certain charges were framed against him on 25. 5. 2000. In the panel of promotion for the post of deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the year 1999, the crucial date for promotion is 1. 3. 1999, in which the petitioner's name was also included. THEreafter, by an order dated 7. 7. 2000, the first respondent has issued an order of promotion as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to the petitioner as well as to the other candidates. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 23. 7. 2004, the first respondent has chosen to revert the petitioner as Assistant Commercial Tax officer from Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the ground of pendency of charge memo framed against the petitioner dated 25. 5. 2000, stating that it was not brought to the notice of him. As per the guidelines issued in Government Lr. Ms. No. 248, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 20. 10. 1997, pendency of charges framed under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, should be held against the officer concerned. It was on these two grounds, the impugned order came to be passed by reverting the petitioner. Admittedly, before passing the impugned order, no notice was also given to the petitioner.

(3.) MR. K. Vellaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that a reference with regard to the original order of promotion dated 7. 7. 2000 issued by the first respondent himself would say that the first respondent has considered every aspect of every one of the candidates who have been promoted on that date and having been satisfied with the candidates including the petitioner found fit for promotion, such promotion order was passed. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent himself in promoting the petitioner as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer as early as 7. 7. 2000 has to be considered as a promotion with application of mind and there is absolutely no reason warranting the reversion of the same. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in any event, having given promotion to the petitioner from 7. 7. 2000 and the petitioner has been permitted to work in the promoted post and also retired as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 30. 4. 2006, it is not open to the first respondent to pass the impugned order by reverting him, which is arbitrary and illegal conduct.