SANJEEV KUMAR DUBEY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 06/09/2017, by which, he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner, Excise Department, Indore.

(2.) According to him, in the month of August' 2017 he found that certain liquor contractors of Indore have committed forgery while submitting treasury challan in his office. Vide note-sheet dated 08/08/2017, he has brought this fact to the knowledge of the Collector, Indore. The Collector, Indore vide order letter dated 08/08/2017 has requested D.I.G, Indore to register FIR against 11 liquor contractors and two others namely Raju Dashwant and Ansh Trivedi. In pursuant to the aforesaid letter, an FIR under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 34 of IPC has been registered in police station Rawaji Bazar, Indore on 11/08/2017 against all those persons named in the letter of the Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner has brought the entire incident to the knowledge of Secretary, Commercial Tax Department. Thereafter, vide order dated 06/09/2017, the petitioner has been placed under suspension alongwith five others, hence the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) The writ petition came up for admission on 08/09/2017. The State Government took time to file certain documents/inquiry report. The State Government filed return by submitting that the petitioner is having alternate remedy of appeal against the order of suspension, therefore, the petition is not tenable. Before placing the petitioner under suspension, preliminary enquiry in respect of the revenue losses and forgery in treasury challan was conducted by five members committee headed by the Joint Director, Finance. The committee inquired the conduct of each and every officers posted in the Excise Department at Indore and after scrutiny of the entire documents submitted its report against the petitioner. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the State Government decided to suspend the petitioner in contemplating of the departmental enquiry. That the suspension order was issued by the Competent Authority. Prima facie, the petitioner failed to follow the provisions of Rule 52(5) of the M.P. Treasury Code and he has failed to discharge the power of District Excise Officer. The entire forgery was done during his tenure, therefore, no interference is called in the writ petition.