Order of disciplinary authority not interfered as perversity not established by Commercial Tax officer

V.Mahendhiran Vs Government of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court refused to interfere in order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing stoppage of increment of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes since there is no perversity in the orders. Accordingly, writ dismissed.

Facts- The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 by and in which the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Notably, V. Mahendran, the petitioner, herein, was serving as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and various charges were alleged against him.

In pursuance of the charge memorandum, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and vide order dated 25.07.2012 based upon the finding that all the charges have been proved, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 12.11.2024 have confirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. Against which, the present writ petition has been filed.

Conclusion- It is well settled principle of law that, unless there is a perversity or any finding without there being any evidence, the question of interference with the order of the Appellate Authority under judicial review does not arise. In the case in hand, the petitioner could not establish any perversity over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Apart from that, coming to the proportionality of the sentence, it is well settled principle of law that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, the interference with the punishment becomes illegal. Here, this Court could not find any disproportionately between the gravity of charge and punishment.