Apoorva Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel, Lko. and 3 Others

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64 of 2025

Petitioner :- Apoorva Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Pratap Singh,Abhishek Singh,Kushagra Dikshit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jaideep Narayan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ajeet Pratap Singh and Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax and was posted in the Mobile Squad in IIIrd Unit, Meerut. On 25.10.2024, at 7.00AM, when petitioner was conducting intercepted a truck bearing Registration No. HR 55 AK 7863 at Kashi Toll Plaza situated at Delhi - Dehradun Highway at Meerut. After interception, documents were demanded from the truck driver who produced the same, from which the petitioner came to know that goods were tableware and imported at Delhi Airport and were on way to Dehradoon. The petitioner on examining the said documents found that there was discrepancy in the form of different date of bill of entry being mentioned in the e-way bill inasmuch as date of bill of entry was mentioned as 22.10.2024 while the date of bill of entry stated in the e-way bill was 24.10.2024, and finding the said discrepancy, petitioner detained the vehicle for further examination.

¶7

After interception, petitioner uploaded the record on online portal at 7.49. On 26.10.2024 the goods loaded on the vehicle were verified and it was found that the quantity of goods matched with the quantity of goods loaded on the vehicle and the entry bill/invoice was presented before the Mobile Squad and after being satisfied, the petitioner did not find any discrepancy and after being satisfied that delay from 11.10.2024 to 24.10.2024 was on account of congestion of the Airline and Diwali inward traffic and hence released the goods after informing higher authorities including the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II, SIB.

¶8

It seems that goods in question belonged to one M/s Sun and Moon Company, who in the meanwhile had made a complaint

¶9

against petitioner for detaining the said vehicle and the goods owned by the said company to the State Government, on which certain inquiries were held and petitioner was also asked to participate in the said inquiry alongwith all the documents pertaining to detention of the said vehicle and goods. After the above inquiry, a inquiry report was submitted on 16.11.2024 by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Gautambudh Nagar NOIDA, who endorsed the fact that there was no infirmity in the action of the petitioner firstly in detaining the goods and secondly having released the goods and also gave specific finding that said action of the petitioner was not contrary to any of the Rules. Certain minor infirmities were found in the procedure adopted by the petitioner to the extent that statement of driver was not recorded and his signatures were not obtained on the duplicate copy of the MOV-II and MOV-IV.

¶10

It is relevant to notice here that a letter was written to M/s Sun and Moon Company asking them to adduce evidence or relevant material in support of their complaint for detention of the said goods and on 08.11.2024, by means of an e-mail to the Additional Commissioner, U.P. the company informed that they have no complaint to make in this regard.

¶11

After the inquiry was conducted, again an effort was made by the respondents to find out that there was any other grievance by the said company against petitioner and accordingly by means of letter dated 08.11.2024, M/s Sun and Moon Company informed that they had no grievance in connection with the detention of the their goods and truch and also requested to close the said matter.

¶12

It seems that the Government took yet another decision and another report was obtained from the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax on 20.11.2024. It seems that owner of M/s Sun and Moon Company had telephonic word with the Additional Commissioner and merely on the basis of the fact that certain allegations were made orally which were duly recorded in the order dated 20.11.2024, decision was taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

¶13

It has been submitted that it is only on the basis of aforesaid material that by means of impugned order dated 26.11.2024, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and subsequently, charge sheet has also been issued on 28.11.2024. The order of suspension as well as charge sheet has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that entire exercise undertaken by the respondents is bereft of

¶15

any material and on account of malafide, petitioner submits that there was no infirmity in the action taken by the petitioner, firstly in detaining the said goods and subsequently, on finding that there was no discrepancy in the papers had released the goods. It is submitted that the complaint would have been made either by the owner of the Company or through some independent means to establish the allegations. It is submitted that such allegations could not be levelled without any material.

¶16

In the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax he has recorded that there was no infirmity in the action of the petitioner and there was no violation of any rule in detention of truck and release of the same subsequently. Infringement, if any, was of minor nature which occurred on account of the fact that petitioner had not complied with all the provisions which she was mandated to comply with, but it is submitted that in such circumstances, the Unit Officer could not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the suspension order being bereft of any merit and deserves to be set aside.

¶17

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the State Government has to be just, fair and reasonable and it is open for the respondents to conduct inquiry in case there is sufficient material, but in absence of any material the respondents can not proceed against petitioner in arbitrary manner.

¶18

Perusal of charge sheet indicates that only evidence sought to be adduced against the petitioner is the report about various infirmities committed by the petitioner and apart from above there is no other independent, cogent, reasonable material or evidence which can indicate to culpability of the petitioner, accordingly, prayer has been made to quash the charge sheet as well as suspension order.

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that there was sufficient material which has been duly reproduced and served upon the petitioner in the form of charge sheet. He has submitted that veracity of the allegations made in the charge sheet cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition as the petitioner would have adequate remedy before the inquiry officer to take all the pleas in her defense and it is only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, charges would either be established or the petitioner would be exonerated in case prosecution is unable to produce any cogent evidence in this regard. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that supplementary charge sheet

¶20

has also been served upon the petitioner on 17.01.2025 and a copy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Court itself.

¶21

Without further entering into the factual aspect of the matter, considering the fact that disciplinary proceedings in the matter are pending, we have examined the record and it would be sufficient to record the fact that the preliminary inquiry conducted by a senior officer of the department has after examining the entire material on record held that there was no violation of the rules by the petitioner, while on the other hand the proprietor of M/s Sun and Moon Company had refused to level any allegation against petitioner, but on the other hand the charges are yet to be established in the disciplinary proceedings and this Court taking into account the fact that the petitioner would have adequate opportunity before the disciplinary authority and at this stage this Court would not examine the veracity of the charges and refrain from passing any observation in this regard, as it would prospectively effect the inquiry officer in examining the entire material.

¶22

Taking note of the fact that in the preliminary inquiry report sufficient findings have been recorded in favour of the petitioner, this Court finds that it is a fit case for limited interference.

¶23

Accordingly, let counter affidavit be filed within next three weeks. Two weeks thereafter is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶24

List this case on 06.03.2025.

¶25

Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of suspension order dated 26.11.2024, shall remain stayed. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the inquiry officer and accordingly, it is expected that the inquiry would proceed in accordance with law and concluded with expedition.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 A. Verma

¶27

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Apoorva Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apoorva Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Singh (Pno - 892360927) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Sunder Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cane Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Arora vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Appointment Lko. and 2 Others

Brij Mohan Chandra vs State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Sangam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Geology and Mining U.P. Lko. and 2 Others