Chamanlal Hiralal Rajyaguru vs State Of Gujarat, Through Secretary & 3 Other(S)

A.S. Supehia, J

At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the petitioner has pointed out the judgment and order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar dated 26.07.2006 passed in Appeal No.208 of 2005 filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of punishment of dismissal which was imposed upon him vide order dated 20.07.2005. He has submitted that there were eleven contentions raised by the present petitioner in his appeal before the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal after recording the facts has cursorily dismissed his appeal and hence, the impugned judgment and order is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded.

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jadeja has submitted that the impugned order could not be disturbed since the Tribunal after considering the necessary fact that the disciplinary authority has passed the order of penalty after applying its mind to the inquiry report, the Tribunal after recording the same has in its wisdom did not think it fit to disturb the impugned order of dismissal. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may not be remanded.

I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

The petitioner was dismissed by the order dated 20.07.2005. He challenged the same by filing an Appeal No.208 of 2005 before the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal reveals that there were eleven contentions raised by the present petitioner which are incorporated as under:

"2. The learned advocate Shri Hasit Joshi had remained present and presented his following arguments. The gist of the appeal memo and the arguments made by learned advocate at the time of final hearing is as follow:

(1) The chargesheet relates to incidence of 2002 whereas the charge sheet was issued to him on 30th January, 2004.

(2) His statement was recorded on 15/6/2002 by the Administrative Officer of the office of the Divisional Dy. Director, Health and Medical Services, Rajkot in which he had categorically denied the charges.

(3) The appellant had submitted the copy of the same statement before the Inquiry Officer and the appellant has stated that he has nothing more to say regarding the matter.

(4) The preliminary inquiry was conducted by one Shri M.N.Jadeja, Adm. Officer of the Dy. Director office, Rajkot and the Inquiry Report had cleared him of all the charges. The person who had made the allegation of short payment against him had also signed on the Office copy of the TA Bill. Shri Jadeja had in his report mentioned that if any demand for money was made from the concerned employees, they could have filed a complaint to the ACB or could have made an immediate complaint before the Superior Officer. But, no such complaint was made at the time of the incident and therefore, the preliminary inquiry concluded with the remarks that the allegations against the appellant were not prima facie established. This report has not been taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Respondent no.1. The copy of the preliminary report of the Inquiry by Shri Jadeja was also not suppled to the appellant. Further, copy of the further inquiry report by Dr. Nagar was also not made available to the appellant.

(5) After the issue of his initial charge sheet, further witnesses had been added to the complaint later on. This was not proper.

(6) The appellant has not been supplied the copies of the Transfer T.A. Bill about which the written complaint of short payment has been made.

(7) It has been submitted by the department to the Inquiry Officer that a complaint had also been received against Shri Rajyaguru but copy of the above complaint has never been supplied to him.

(8) None of the complainants have made any complaint about the short payment. They have all singed on the Revenue stamps. So at the most the complaint is of short payment among the employees and there has been no loss to Govt.

(9) The burden to prove that less amount was paid lies on the Department. It is clear that there is no proof of short payment to the employees. Hence, the complaint cannot be believed.

(10) The appellant submitted that the final show cause notice was for a major penalty but it has been issued by an Officer who was not the appointing authority of the appellant and therefore punishment based on such final show cause notice is illegal.

(11) The appointing authority has not considered the previous records of the employee before imposing such a major penalty and the appellant is left without any employment at the age of 43 years."

The Tribunal after recording the facts from paragraph Nos.1 to 5 has observed in paragraph No.7 as under:

"7. The Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of penalty after applying his mind to the Inquiry Report as well as the explanation of Shri Rajyaguru. It is clear from a reading of the order that the Disciplinary Authority has applied his mind properly and then taken a decision. Further, looking to the charges which had to be proved against the appellant, the penalty imposed is not un-reasonable or dis-proportionate to the proved charges. Shri Rajyaguru has shown lack of integrity in his work and has thus violated conduct rules. Therefore, it has been rightly held by the Disciplinary Authority that his continuation in Govt. service is not in the interests of public service. Pleas of the appellant thus fail. We therefore, pass the following order."

Thus, the findings of the Tribunal reveals that the contentions raised by the present petitioner were absolutely ignored and the Tribunal confirmed the order of the punishment of the dismissal by observing that since the disciplinary authority has passed the order of penalty after applying his mind to the inquiry report as well as the explanation of Shri Rajyaguru, i.e., the petitioner, the impugned order of penalty cannot be said to be unreasonable or disproportionate to the proved charges. The Tribunal was required to deal with all the contentions raised by the present petitioner before it. The petitioner has specifically contended that the relevant documents i.e. the copies of the Transfer TA bills based on which the written complaint was made, was not supplied. It is also submitted by him that the copy of the complaint on which the inquiry was premised was also not supplied. It is further averred by the petitioner that none of the complainants have made any complaint about the short payment. The aforenoted facts were required to be dealt with by the Tribunal before confirming the order of the penalty.

In these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to pass an appropriate judgment and order after dealing with all the contentions raised by the present petitioner before it after giving an opportunity to him. It is further clarified that all the contentions raised in the present petition are also left open. The present petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid extent.

Since the matter is of the year 2006, the Tribunal is requested to dispose the appeal preferably within a period of four months. Direct service is permitted.