NARAIN SINGH RANAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer in the Commercial Taxes Department In Govt. of Rajasthan in the year 1983. A memo dated 7.12.83 was issued by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur and an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short Rules of 1958) was initiated against the petitioner. In all three charges were leveled against him. Two of these charges were in relation to the alleged absence from the Check Post Shahpura and the last one was in relation to the alleged reduction in the quantum of tax collection at the said check post during the tenure of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the memo on 21.12.83 and pointed out that he had sincerely discharged his duties after his appointment in service. He had to rush to Jaipur on account of accident, of his daughter regarding which information had been received by him at Shahpura. On account of the fact that 4.12.83 was a Sunday, he could not contact his senior officer and could not inform them. However he made a note about the same in the attendance register. He stated that on 5.12.83 he appeared before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward Jaipur and appraised him of all the facts. He submitted an application for grant of casual leave and for grant of headquarter permission. The Commercial Taxes Officer sanctioned him leave for 4.12.83 and granted permission of leaving the headquarter upto 1 PM of 5.12.83. The petitioner, therefore, contended that no misconduct had beer committed by him. He stated in the circumstances in which he had to come to Jaipur, it cannot be said that he had deliberately violated orders of the higher authorities. He gave out the figures of tax collection during his tenure and corresponding term of the previous year and submitted that the tax collection has in fact been on the higher said and that he was in no way responsible for the alleged reduction in the amount of tax collected and that the allegation In respect of charge No. 3 was absolutely unfounded.

(2.) THEREAFTER the Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) Headquarters wrote a D.O. letter dated 11.1.84 to the petitioner and called upon him to submit medical prescription, bill of medicine and certificate of admission of the child in the hospital. In response to the above letter the petitioner submitted certificate of Dr. R.R. Gupta along with his letter dated 16.1.84.

(3.) THE main ground of challenge is that the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes was not competent to impose any punishment on an officer of the State service and the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, belonged to the State Service in Commercial Taxes Department. It has also been stated that the order of punishment is not speaking and that the facts given in the reply of the petitioner were not at all taken into consideration by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department while passing the impugned order.