JAYANTILAL HIRALAL MANDALIA Vs. CHARITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of punishment passed by the respondent, Charity Commissioner dated 1.4.85 after holding departmental inquiry on the ground of misconduct and confirmed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, by order dated 30.1.87 in Appeal No.355/85.

(2.) A short resume of relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this petition may be articulated, at the outset, so as to appreciate the merits of the petition and the challenge against it.

(3.) The petitioner was working as an Accountant in the office of Charity Commissioner. Departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the charge that the petitioner falsely, wrongly and without authority had issued a succession certificate to one Rasilaben Kharecha, though such a succession certificate bearing No.446/77 was issued to one Jagdish A. Desai and it was within the knowledge of the petitioner. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs.8,000.00 towards expenses and fees of succession certificate paid by Rasilaben was misappropriated by the petitioner. In short, succession certificate bearing No.446/77 was issued by the petitioner to one Rasilaben without authority and misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,000.00 which was taken from Rasilaben towards fees and expenses for issuance of the succession certificate and thereby, committed misconduct and act of misappropriation of public fund and his conduct was unbecoming of a Government servant or a public functionary. Along with the chargesheet, statement of imputations and list of 74 documents as well as list of 14 witnesses proposed to be examined, on behalf of the Government, had been served, which was replied by the petitioner on 10.3.80, denying all the allegations. The departmental inquiry was then commenced by the then Charity Commissioner one Mr.Y.M.Desai. During the course of the inquiry, Mr.Desai was superannuated and was succeeded by one Mr.Merchant, who transferred the pending inquiry to the Special Officer for Departmental Inquiry, Ahmedabad. The Special Officer, submitted his report of inquiry, on 10.1.83. In the report, it was reported that the charges against the petitioner were found proved.