MANSUKHLAL AMRABHAI VARSUR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The facts in nut-shell are that the petitioner was serving as a Range Forest Officer, SMC Manavadar, Junagadh. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing charge sheet dated 15.06.1999, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner while serving as a Forest Range Officer has committed financial irregularities. On completion of the inquiry, the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. For the said misconduct the petitioner was visited with the punishment of reduction in pay to the minimum in the pay-scale for a period of five years with future effect vide order dated 27.10.2002. It was also ordered that the amount of Rs.3,28,472/- misappropriated by the petitioner be recovered from him. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued the reinstatement order dated 28.01.2003, wherein it was stated that the services of the petitioner will be treated as continuous. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 13 of 2003 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.06.2005 rejected the said appeal. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 19288 of 2005 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 23.09.2005 rejected the said petition. It is the case of the petitioner after rejection of the said petition, the respondents-authorities without issuing any notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is the case of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order dated 12.05.2008, the respondent-authority have neither heard the petitioner nor have issued any notice to the petitioner. On perusal of the record, I find substance in the said contention raised by the petitioner inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were heard or that notice was issued before passing the impugned order. The learned AGP appearing for the respondents-authorities was not in a position to controvert the above position. Thus, it has to be said that the impugned order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the respondent-authority, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the fitness of things, it would be appropriate that the respondent authority decides the issue afresh, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to present his case.