Anjali Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings against an officer (VAT Commissioner) cannot take place on information, which is vague and indefinite and suspicion has no role to play in such matters when the department has taken a conscious decision not to challenge the order passed by the appellant and has allowed the same to attain finality.
Facts- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the direction given in paragraph-14 of the interim order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ-A No. 7888 of 2022 : Anjali Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, whereby Hon’ble Single Judge granted liberty to the respondents/State to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the order and also to post the writ petitioner at any place, considering the fact that disciplinary proceedings are pending against her, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.
The core issue for consideration is whether the direction issued by Hon’ble Single Judge in paragraph-14 of the impugned order dated 28.11.2022, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and post the appellant at any place, tentamounts to a “judgment” within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court making it amenable to special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court.
Conclusion- The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant have been initiated merely because the assessee has deposited the penalty within a very short span of time which raised a suspicion with regard to the penalty order passed by the appellant. In Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information, which is vague and indefinite and suspicion has no role to play in such matters when the department has taken a conscious decision not to challenge the order passed by the appellant and has allowed the same to attain finality. Prima facie, it appears at this stage that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be drawn against the appellant to punish her for having passed the aforesaid order.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the respondents ought not to have been given liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and to post her anywhere considering the facts that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against her.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
