Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The first respondent had filed a O.A. No. 3913 of 2003 challenging the charge memo issued against him. The two charges against the first respondent are quoted here under.

Charge No. 1 : That Thiru A. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner (CT) while holding Full Additional Charge of the post of Deputy Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore, during the period from 19.8.2002 to 08.07.2003 had failed to monitor the performance of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupoor, in executing the instructions issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in D.O. Letter No. Q2/78476/2001, dated 11.10.2002 and had thereby failed to take effective steps towards the collection of the tax dues from dealers who had violated the conditions prescribed for the availment of IFST Deferral as noted in the enclosure.

Charge No. 2:- That Thiru A. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner (CT) by his aforesaid act of failure to follow the instructions issued by his superior officer and by his failure to safeguard the interests of the Revenue had acted with negligence and recklessness in the discharge of his official responsibilities, thereby, violating Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.

5. The main contention of the present first respondent before the Tribunal was to the effect that the allegation in the annexure along with the charge memo related to the period during which the other Deputy Commissioners were in-charge of the post of Deputy Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore and he was merely in-charge of the post of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) for a short period during the period from 19-8-2002 to 08-07-2003. In was indicated that he had been singled out and no action has been contemplated against the predecessor, who had functioned as a Deputy Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore or the successor in such office. The said charge memo had been issued just two days prior to the submission of the proposal to the promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (CT), and it was the specific case of the present respondent NO. 1 that the charge memo had been purposely issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (herein after referred to as The Rules) with the malafide motive to make him ineligible for the promotion which was about to be considered.