Tax officer to remain suspended
HC has directed DVAC to complete investigation into the corruption case against officer
Chennai: Refusing to interfere with the suspension of an assistant commissioner of commercial taxes and registration department, the Madras HC has directed the directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC) to complete the investigation into the corruption case against him within six months. Justice D. Hariparanthaman closed the petition filed by V. Mathiyalagan, which sought to quash the order of the commercial taxes and registration department secretary, dated April 30, 2014, not permitting him to retire and placing him under suspension.
According to Mathiyalagan, he was working as assistant commissioner in the commercial taxes and registration department. He attained the age of superannuation on April 30, 2014.
On the date of retirement, by government orders, he was not allowed to retire and was placed under suspension. The reason behind the orders was an FIR was registered on April 25, 2014 by the DVAC for offences under various provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
He challenged the orders by citing a judgment of the Supreme Court, which stated that without issuing a charge memo, an employee cannot be kept under suspension for more than three months.
The judge said he was in full agreement with the submissions of the special government pleader that only in the cases of departmental proceedings, which was contemplated and pending for more than 3 months without issuing charge memo, the Supreme Court directed to restore the employee in service and proceed with action.
The apex court judgment will not apply to the order of suspension based on criminal cases, he pointed out as in this case, FIR has been registered for serious criminal allegations and the investigation is on. “I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed against the petitioner. However, the DVAC is directed to complete the investigation within six months and in case if the investigation is not completed the petitioner is at liberty to approach this court seeking appropriate relief,” he said.