AMBALAL L AKHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.6.1987 (Annexure-L) passed by the State Government, Revenue Department, imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect as also the order dated 12.10.1987 (Annexure-N) passed by the State Government, rejecting the petitioner's application for review.

(2.) The petitioner was at the relevant time working as Mamlatdar in Sanand taluka of Ahmedabad (Rural) District. The petitioner had given certificate in the year 1979 to the effect that one Anitaben Dayanand Kathwaliya was residing at Sanand since three years. This certificate dated 4.12.1979 was given for the purpose of registration with the Employment Exchange. The said certificate is at Annexure-C. The certificate also stated that it was also given on the basis of the report of the Talati-cum-Mantri of Sanand. Thereafter, on 18.9.1986 the State Government issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner for showing gross negligence in issuing incorrect certificate of residence in favour of Anitaben Dayanand Kathwaliya. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 3.12.1986 (Annexure-G) stating that the petitioner had relied on the enquiry made and the report submitted by clerk H.B. Chavada and Deputy Mamlatdar H.R. Shelat. The said employees had referred to Talati's report dated 18.9.1979 and the subordinate employees did not bring to the notice of the petitioner that thereafter the Talati had submitted another report on 24.10.1979. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. It was also submitted that the petitioner was busy with other matters like Chapter case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. and also attending meetings regarding planning arranged by the Ahmedabad District Panchayat at Ahmedabad. The petitioner had also to go to Anadej for attending another meeting. The State Government, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 23.6.1987 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect. The petitioner filed a review application. Since the review application was also rejected, the petitioner has approached this court.

(3.) Mr. N.R. Shahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. The petitioner had merely relied on merely the enquiry made by the subordinates and therefore, there was no misconduct as such. In the alternative, it was submitted that in any view of the matter, the authorities have imposed the penalty without following the procedure required to be followed for imposing major penalty. Although, stoppage of increment without future effect would ordinarily be a minor penalty, in the facts and circumstances of the case it has turned out to be a major penalty in view of the fact that the petitioner's increment was due on 1.7.1987 and that increment for the period 1.7.1987 to 30.6.1988 was withheld pursuant to the impugned order of penalty and thereafter the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.11.1988. The petitioner's next increment subsequently came to be released with effect from 1.7.1987 but the petitioner did not get the benefit of salary with the increment for the period 1.7.1987 to 30.6.1988. The effect was that for the purpose of calculating the petitioner's pension as on 1.12.1988, the authorities took into account the petitioner's salary for last ten months' period i.e. from 1.2.1988 to 30.11.1988 which included a part of the period of penalty i.e. 1.2.1988 to 30.6.1988.