Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Dhanaraju. M. K. Vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No. 22861 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/05/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Dhanaraju. M. K. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

In the case of Dhanaraju. M. K. vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka High Court addressed a series of writ petitions challenging orders of suspension issued against several officers of the Commercial Tax Department. These suspensions were triggered by allegations aired in a news report by Asianet Suvarna News, alleging habitual acceptance of illegal gratification by officers. The orders were swiftly executed on November 25, 2022, and in subsequent days, based solely on this news broadcast.

The petitioners contended that their suspensions were unjustified, primarily because they were based on unverified allegations from a news program rather than on substantive evidence or due process. They argued that the suspensions were premature and lacked legal merit. Initially, some petitioners obtained interim relief from the High Court against the suspension orders, and subsequently, the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) reviewed the cases and upheld the suspensions in an order dated October 5, 2023.

During the course of the legal proceedings, additional developments emerged. On August 3, 2023, FIRs were registered by the Lokayukta police based on a sting operation related to the allegations made in the news report. These FIRs were challenged by the petitioners in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The High Court, in a judgment dated October 6, 2023, quashed the FIRs, citing non-compliance with Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The quashing of the FIRs raised substantial questions about the basis of the suspensions. The petitioners argued that since the FIRs were invalidated due to procedural lapses, there was no longer any justification for their suspension from service. Furthermore, they pointed out that significant time had elapsed since their suspension orders were issued, during which they had not been able to perform their official duties.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031