P.Saravanan Vs State of Tamilnadu (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that commercial tax officer cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the collection target was not reached by him. Accordingly, order imposing penalty is liable to be set aside.
Facts- The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner/ the 3rd respondent. In the said order, the Joint Commissioner found that the Delinquent Officer did not perform his duties while being a part of Roving Squad, failed to book cases, resulting in low performance and less compounding fee collection though the target collection was set @ Rs.2.70 lakhs. The collection was much below the target and was unacceptable.
The petitioner was charged with lapses and explanations called for. Finding that the explanation given by the Officer for less collection below the target level was unacceptable, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect was ordered.
Conclusion- Held that though a target is fixed by the Department, that by itself does not mean that the Officers have to collect the said amount irrespective of there being any violations. On the basis of assumption that the petitioner has not discharged his duties in the background of lesser collection in comparison, the punishing authority has committed an error. Since it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had deliberately let off any of the offending vehicles and failed to collect the fine amount, imposing penalty on the petitioner on the ground that the target was not reached by him, cannot be sustained. As already discussed, finding of the Authority is not based on any factual data but on an unfounded allegation. Such finding cannot form the basis for inflicting punishment on the employee. Thus, the petitioner succeeds and the impugned order of punishment dated 24.04.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed.
