Page 93 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] K.C. PURUSHOTHAMAN v. TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPN. LTD. 603
order passed by the second respondent in memo dated 22-10-2018 is
quashed. The respondents are directed to issue show cause notice, set-
ting out all the details to the writ petitioner, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the
show cause notice from the respondents, the writ petitioner is directed
to submit their explanations/objections, along with the documents, if
any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the show
cause notice and thereafter, the authorities competent shall consider
the materials available on record as well as the explana-
tions/objections submitted by the writ petitioner, take a decision and
pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
eight weeks thereafter. It is made clear that in the event of imposing
minor penalty, such a procedure can be adopted and if the authorities
are of the opinion that the allegations warranting major penalty, then
the procedure of enquiry and other procedures are to be followed in
accordance with the Model Standing Orders.
9. The order passed by this Court in the above writ petition, will
squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has been pun-
ished without even giving an opportunity. Without deciding the charge
that has been made against the petitioner, the petitioner has been directed
to pay the amount and on non-payment, the petitioner has also been sus-
pended from service. This clearly constitutes predetermination of the entire
issue. The 3rd respondent cannot compel the petitioner to first pay the pen-
alty and GST, and thereafter participate in the enquiry, and on non-
payment cannot suspend the petitioner. This procedure adopted by the 3rd
respondent is like putting the cart before the horse. The petitioner is first
punished and thereafter he is asked to attend for an enquiry. This clearly
goes against the principles of natural justice.
10. In the result, the memorandum dated 4-10-2019, issued by the
3rd respondent is hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue a
fresh show cause notice to the petitioner setting out all the details, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On re-
ceipt of the show cause notice from the respondent, the petitioner is di-
rected to submit his explanation/objection and also the documents relied
upon by him, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the
show cause notice. Thereafter, the Competent Authority shall consider the
entire materials and take a decision and pass orders on merits and in ac-
cordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. In the mean-
time, the petitioner shall be permitted to work as salesman in the TASMAC
Shop.”
6. Per contra, Mr. Sathish Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the re-
spondents submitted that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent
dated 26-12-2019, is only in the nature of a show cause notice and the petitioner
can be directed to give the explanation for the show cause notice and the same
will be considered and thereafter, final orders will be passed.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8. The impugned proceedings of the second respondent even though
carries the nomenclature of a show cause notice, in effect, it is directing the peti-
tioner to pay the penalty along with GST within a period of 7 days, failing which,
the petitioner will be removed from service. Before passing such an order, the
petitioner was not put on notice and his explanation was not sought for. There-
fore, the proceedings of the second respondent is in the nature of an order passed
behind the back of the petitioner, without affording an opportunity to the peti-
tioner and the same requires interference of this Court on that ground alone.
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  189