The learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Anjali Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. : 2023 SCC OnLine All 3185, wherein a disciplinary proceeding under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was initiated against an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax on the ground that she had violated provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act as she, by arranging wrong facts, evidences and fabricated documents at her own convenience as well as with the collusion of traders, declared less valuable and less taxable plastic scraps in place of more valuable and more taxable metal/non-metal items and deposited very less amount in the State treasury instead of required tax/penalty, which caused revenue loss to the Government. The appellant was placed under suspension. The suspension order was stayed by the Writ Court but the authorities were granted liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. In appeal against the order passed by the Writ Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court noted that the order passed by the appellant, which formed the basis for her suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her, had not been revised or cancelled by the respondents. Rather, a conscious decision was taken not to take any action against the order passed by the appellant. The Division Bench held that when the respondents themselves had allowed the order passed by the appellant to attain finality and they had taken a conscious decision not to challenge the order, the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a mere suspicion raised on the basis that the assessee has deposited the penalty within a very short span of time after passing of the order, appears to be no good ground for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The Bench held that: -
