K.K. Chaudhari vs District Panchayat and Another

Paresh Upadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. D.A. Bambhania, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. R.V. Acharya learned advocate for the

respondent District Panchayat and Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned A.G.P. for the State. By this petition, challenge is made to the order dated

02.01.2002 passed by the Government, whereby the major punishment of reduction of pension to the extent of Rs. 345/- per month was imposed

for 5 years against the petitioner, who was Extension Officer working with the respondent- District Panchayat, Surat.

Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent-District Panchayat in the year 1963,

initially as Gram Sevak. Thereafter in the year 1985, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Extension Officer (Panchayat). The petitioner

retired on 30.11.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the eve of retirement, the District Development Officer Surat issued charge-sheet

to the petitioner alleging therein that, while in service the petitioner was also associated with one village level Milk Co-operative Society, (Ghantoli

Group Dudh Utpadak Co-operative Mandali), which he could not do, in view of the conduct rules then prevailing. One Taluka Development

Officer working under the Administrative Control of District Development Officer, Surat was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who held the charges

to be proved and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed by the Government. It was held by the State Authorities that since the

petitioner is getting Rs. 3450/- per month as pension, 10% thereof should be deemed proper punishment and that is how Rs. 335/- is reduced

from his pension by way of penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.A. Bambhania has contended that apart from that the fact, the very

issuance of the charge-sheet was bad in the eyes of law on more than one counts, even before passing the impugned order by the Government, no

notice whatsoever was issued, even after the so called finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is contended that thus the impugned order is in

gross violation of principal of natural justice as well, and the same be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya representing District Panchayat Surat, as well as Mr. Soni, learned A.G.P. have

supported the impugned order. In substance, it is contended by the respondent authorities that in view of the conduct Rules, the petitioner could

not hold the post of President of village level co-operative unit and having done so, he had committed misconduct, which in the view of respondent

authorities, was a gross misconduct so as to exercise powers by the authorities under Rule 189-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. It is

contended that under these circumstances no interference be made by this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and having gone through the record, this Court finds that the impugned order needs to

be interfered with on more than one counts. Firstly learned counsel for the respondent-authorities could not dispute the say of the petitioner that, at

least after the Inquiry Officer recorded his finding, no notice was given to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the impugned order needs to

be set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. I also find that no procedure for imposing major punishment, coupled

with requirement of BCSR 189-A is followed in this case. Be it noted that the impugned order is stated to have been passed in exercise of powers

under Rule 189-A of BCSR, however, the same is done without following the procedure for imposing major punishment.

Apart from the above that the impugned order needs to be interfered with on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, even on

merits, this Court finds that the action of the respondent-District Panchayat, Surat was not legal. Be it noted that the petitioner was in service since

1963, it is alleged that since 1975, he was also associated with the co-operative movement at village level. It is not disputed that in the year 1985

the petitioner was promoted as Extension Officer. If this activity of being associated with a village level co-operative unit was such a gross

misconduct which warranted punishment in exercise of power under Rule 189-A of BCSR, he would not have been promoted in the year 1985 by

the District Panchayat. Further the authorities did nothing till the superannuation retirement of the petitioner and only on the eve of his retirement

such a stale issue is dug up. All this speaks a lot about the intention of the respondent authority. Further the time gap between the alleged

misconduct and issuance of charge-sheet is also fatal to the proceedings.

For the reasons recorded above the impugned order dated 02.01.2002 is quashed and set aside. The respondent are directed to pay cost of

Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner, which shall be paid within a period of two months from today. It is open to the state authorities to recover the

amount of cost from the erring officer, if it is so advised. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute, with costs as directed above.