The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru, lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Junior Assistant, as jurisdiction lay with the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, per G.O.Ms.No.581.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

This writ petition one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.1240 of 2007, dated 26.03.2009 and quash the same as being perverse, in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and for a consequential direction.

2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that:

(a) The 1st respondent, while working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Akividu, alleging that he indulged in grave irregularities of misappropriation of Government Revenue, was placed under suspension, besides issuing memo dated 05.07.2004 proposing articles of charges. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Eluru Division, East Godavari District – i.e., the 2nd petitioner, who initiated the above proceedings in his charge memo has alleged that the 1st respondent collected an amount of Rs.7,900/- towards professional tax and sales tax unauthorizedly from different dealers and misappropriated the same rather than depositing the said amounts with the treasury or the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Akividu, and thereby, misused his official position and misappropriated the amounts so collected, which was in violation of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

(b) The Commercial Tax Officer – I, Tanuku, so appointed by the 2nd petitioner, upon conducting enquiry into the above charges submitted report dated 17.11.2004 holding that the above said charges were proved against the 1st respondent. In pursuance to the same, the 2nd petitioner after issuing a proper show-cause notice, enclosing the enquiry report and considering the objections of 1st respondent thereon, by proceedings Ref. No.B2/2019/2003, dated 01.07.2006, imposed major penalty of dismissal from service.

(c) Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent has preferred appeal before the 3rd petitioner – Appellate Authority, who by proceedings CCT’s Ref.No.V4/281/2005, dated 17.02.2007, dismissed the same and confirmed the order of dismissal.

(d) Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings dated 01.07.2006 issued by the 2nd petitioner imposing major penalty of dismissal from service and as confirmed by the 3rd petitioner by order dated 17.02.2007, the 1st respondent preferred O.A. No.1240 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.

(e) In the above said O.A., the 1st respondent has mainly contended that the charge memo dated 05.07.2004 and the consequential proceedings of dismissal from service issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru, was without jurisdiction and he is incompetent to exercise such power. It was the specific pleaded case that in view of G.O.Ms.No.581, Revenue (SPE) Department, dated 24.05.1976 issued in pursuance to Presidential Order, more particularly Paragraph 11 thereof r/w Annexure-I, the appointing authority to the post of Lower Division Clerks being the Deputy Commissioner, the territorial jurisdiction over the revenue district of East Godavari and West Godavari District being conferred on Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, he alone could have exercised the power and jurisdiction but not the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru i.e., the 2nd petitioner herein. In support of the above submission, the 1st respondent relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Prakasha Rao and another v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others, AIR 1990 SC 997, besides the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No.4205 of 1998.

(f) Opposing the aforesaid contention, the petitioners herein have, in their counter, contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru, the District Head (West Godavari District) of Commercial Taxes Department, being the appointing authority to the post of Junior Assistant in which the respondent/applicant was working, by virtue of Rule 9 of A.P. (Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appe