Writ Petition No.381 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Writ Petition No. 381 of 2020

and

WMP.No.431 of 2020

S.Subbulakshmi

W/o.A.Subramanian

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Principal Secretary to the Government,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3. The Deputy Secretary,

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,

TNPSC Road Chennai – 600 003.

4. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

Sivakasi.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the

1^st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.34, Commercial Tax and Registration (E1)

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.381 of 2020

Department dated 28.06.2019 and quash the same as illegal, invalid and

against the Principles of Law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.Chandrasekaran

For Respondents

: Mrs.K.Vasanthamala

Government Advocate [R1 & R2]

Mr.R.Bharanidharan

Standing Counsel [R3]

*****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first

respondent passed in G.O.(2D) No.34, Commercial Tax and Registration

(E1) Department, dated 28.06.2019, wherein the petitioner was imposed

with a punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. for a period

of one year.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while she was holding the post of

Deputy Commercial Officer at Sivakasi, a charge memo came to be issued

to the petitioner by the second respondent through proceedings dated

23.07.2007. The main charge against the petitioner is that she has failed to

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.381 of 2020

undertake sincere, meticulous and serious efforts to collect the

entertainment tax and thereby, had caused loss to the State Exchequer to the

tune of Rs.3,51,091/-.

3. The petitioner gave her explanation for the charges and an Enquiry

Officer came to be appointed and an enquiry report was submitted on

17.03.2008.

4. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer, it was found that the first

charge framed against the petitioner was partly proved and the second and

third charges were not proved. In the mean time, the petitioner attained the

age of superannuation on 31.05.2008 and she was not permitted to retire and

was retained in service through order dated 30.05.2008.

5. The first respondent, after considering the findings of the Enquiry

Officer and the explanation given by the petitioner, disagreed with the

findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to second and third charges and

gave a finding that all the three charges framed against the petitioner have

been proved. Accordingly, through the impugned Government Order, the

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Writ Petition No.381 of 2020

petitioner was imposed with a punishment of cut in pension at the rate of

Rs.500/- p.m. for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the present

writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate

directions.

6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. They have taken a

stand that the petitioner was expected to take serious efforts to collect

entertainment tax from 12 Cable TV Operators. However, the petitioner had

collected only a sum of Rs.4,43,040/- and there was arrears of Rs.3,51,091/.

According to the respondents, if the petitioner had taken serious and sincere

efforts, she could have collected the arrears amount also and due to the

negligence of the petitioner, the same resulted in loss to the State

Exchequer. Accordingly, the respondents have soug