NIVRUTI G AHIRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard at length the Advocates for the parties. This is an application for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the application for review of the order dated 23-8-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 644 of 2000.

(2.) The applicant herein was employed in the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra as a Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for the period from 31-3-1989 to 26-11-1993. During the said period, he was required to pass orders relating to refund of the excess payment of sales tax on consideration of the reports submitted in that regard by the Page 1306 Sales Tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The refund orders were issued by the applicant for a total amount of Rs. 95,57,681/-in six cases under his signature. The refund orders in three cases thereof 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 applicant. In the fifth case, it was issued a week thereafter and in the sixth case, after a period of fortnight. Holding that the applicant did not take due care to verify and/or scrutinise the proposals submitted by the officers before issuing the refund orders and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 95,57,681/-to the public exchequer, and in the process, the applicant failed to perform his duties diligently and vigilantly and failed to take care to ascertain the genuineness of the claims for refund and the proposals submitted in that regard by the Sales Tax Officers, notices were issued to the concerned officers including the applicant by the Government of Maharashtra under the order dated 30-11-1994 for initiating departmental inquiry. The necessary memo in that regard was issued to the applicant which was sought to be challenged by the applicant before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 108 of 1995. Meanwhile, the applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-1994. The Tribunal placing reliance on the Circular dated 20-1-1988, which required the concerned authority to attend to the refund claim promptly, quashed the order dated 30-11-1994 under which departmental proceedings were sought to be initiated against the applicant. The order in that regard was passed by the Tribunal on 18-6-1999, which came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 644 of 2000 on behalf of the Government and after hearing the parties, the petition was allowed by the judgment dated 23-8-2006. After disposal of the petition, the S.L.P. was filed and after the dismissal thereof, the present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner/applicant that the applicant applied for the certified copy of the order dated 23-8-2006 on 13-10-2006. The same was ready on 17-10-2006 but was received by the applicant on 8-11-2006. Thereafter the papers were entrusted to an Advocate practising in the Supreme Court for filing petition for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The S.L.P. was filed on 13-11-2006 and was listed for preliminary hearing on 1-12-2006 when the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the same. The application for certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court was filed on 4-12-2006 and the same was received by the applicant on 6-12-2006. Thereafter, within 30 days the present application has been filed. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is not guilty of gross negligence and in the interest of justice, the Court should condone the delay in filing the review application.