STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NIVRUTI G AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 18th June, 1999 passed by the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 108 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal while allowing the Original application has quashed the charge-sheet dated 30th November, 1994 issued against the respondent herein.

(2.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent was employed in the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra as a Deputy commissioner of Sales Tax for a period from 31st March, 1989 to 26th november, 1993, and in that capacity, he had administrative control of the division under his jurisdiction, apart from the other duties attached to the said office. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Assessing Officers and Tax officers were subordinate to the post of Deputy Commissioner held by the respondent. During the said tenure, the respondent was required to pass orders relating to refund of the excess payment of the sales tax on the consideration of the report submitted in that regard by the Sales Tax Officer or the Assistant commissioner.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that during the relevant period, in six cases, the refund orders were issued for a total amount of Rs. 95,57,681/- under the signature of the respondent. Out of the six cases, three cases of refund orders were issued on the same day on which the proposals were received by him from the Sales Tax Officer. In one case, it was issued on the day following the day on which the proposal was placed before the respondent. In the 5th case, it was issued after a week, and in the 6th case it was issued after a period of fortnight from the date of submission in that regard by the subordinate officer. It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent without taking due care to verify and/or scrutinise the proposal submitted by the Sales Tax Officer issued the refund orders and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 95,57,681/- to the public exchequer. It is their further case that considering that as the amount which was ordered to be refunded was a huge amount, it was expected from the respondent to observe due care and caution and to have the proposal properly scrutinised before issuance of the refund orders, but the respondent failed to perform his duties in that regard diligently and vigilantly. The respondent was not vigilant and did not take care to ascertain the genuineness of the claim for refund and the proposals submitted in that regard by the Sales Tax Officer and issued the said orders. Having brought the said fact to the notice of the concerned authorities, the order dated 30th November. 1994 was issued for initiating departmental inquiry against the respondent. Consequently, the memo was issued to the respondent. The respondent sought to challenge the said order and the memo before the maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the Original Application No. 108 of 1995 which came to be allowed by the impugned order quashing the said order and Memo dated 30th November, 1994. Hence the present petition.