KANTISINH BAHECHARSINH PARMAR Vs. TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the principal of a school run by the Panchayat. He has challenged the communication dated 27.1.2000 produced at Annexure E to the petition. This order was passed by the Taluka Development Officer declaring that the petitioner was not entitled to salary for a period of three days during which he had proceeded on leave between 19th January 2000 to 21st January 2000. In the order itself, it is stated that the petitioner had remained absent without sanctioning the leave. His explanation was not acceptable. The said order was therefore passed under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the TDO is without authority. The same has been passed since the wife of the petitioner was involved in political activity which was not approved. He submitted that the petitioner had sufficient leave to his credit. He had informed the Senior-most Principal before proceeding on leave. Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to state under which provision the TDO would have authority to pass such order. In any case, the tenor of the order itself suggests that the same is meant to be a penal order and not an administrative order. If that be so, the TDO would have to have some authority to pass such order. When it is not shown under which provision, he was granted such authority, the order cannot sustain.

(3.) Ordinarily, I would have permitted the competent authority to examine these aspects and pass consequential order. However, when the period in question is only three days and when it is stated that the petitioner had sufficient leave to his credit, I find that the issues should be allowed to rest at this stage without any further ado.