The Madras High Court has refused to intervene with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer for having gone on starvation strike in assist of Sri Lankan Tamils for seven days between February 3 and 9 in 2009, moreover writing a letter to the then Congress get together president criticising the get together’s insurance policies, particularly the one associated to the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord.
Justices V.M. Velumani and R. Hemalatha dismissed a writ petition filed by G. Balamurugan serving as Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Central Excise in Chennai. The petition was filed final yr difficult an order handed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on March 3, 2021. The CAT too, had refused to intervene with the departmental motion taken against him.
Authoring the judgement for the Division Bench, Justice Hemalatha mentioned the petitioner had joined the Customs division as Appraising Officer in 1993 and promoted to IRS in 2003. He was initially posted as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs at Salem after which transferred to Mumbai. He was positioned beneath suspension in February 2009 and issued with a cost memo in June 2009.
Two expenses have been levelled against him. One was associated to unauthorised absence, and the opposite was for having noticed a starvation strike in assist of Sri Lankan Tamils, moreover writing the letter to the Congress president. After an in depth inquiry, closing orders have been handed on August 8, 2014 inflicting the penalty of pay discount by three levels for a interval of three years. The petitioner made a few representations to the President however to no avail.
In 2019, he approached the CAT which rejected his plea in 2021 main to the current case. The petitioner argued the matter in particular person earlier than the Division Bench and contended {that a} witch hunt had been unleashed against him for having expressed his sentiments supporting fellow Tamils in Sri Lanka. He informed the court docket that neither his resignation in 2009 nor his voluntary retirement software in 2017 have been accepted.
On the opposite hand, V. Sundareswaran, senior panel counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs, informed the Bench the petitioner’s conduct in having criticised authorities insurance policies, regardless of being a authorities servant, couldn’t be taken calmly. He mentioned, the resignation letter was submitted when the 2009 inquiry was pending and the voluntary retirement plea was made when one other inquiry for having brought on loss to the general public exchequer was initiated in 2017.
The counsel additionally informed the court docket that in 2009, the then Union Finance Minister had authorised the cost memo issued to the petitioner and therefore, it was fallacious to contend that it was not authorised of by the disciplinary authority. After listening to each side, the judges wrote: “It is true that the petitioner showed his empathy towards his fellow Sri Lankan Tamil crisis, but as a Government servant he ought to have restrained himself in expressing his personal opinion.”
Highlighting that the petitioner had not denied the misconduct, the judges mentioned, the CAT was proper in holding his case had no deserves. The Bench additionally said the petitioner had erred in claiming that the cost memo didn’t have the approval of the then Finance Minister and that the latter had authorised solely the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
