VIJAY B. BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 05.03.2004 by which he has been terminated from the service.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed by the order dated 04/07.07.2000 passed by the respondent No.2 - Board on a probation for one year. There is a chequered history of the service of the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Executive Engineer on probation basis in the Gujarat State Construction Corporation Ltd. on 25.01.1990. It appears that thereafter there were various deputation orders passed for appointing the petitioner in the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, i.e., respondent No.2 - Board. In the meantime, he has also served with the Gujarat Maritime Board Subdivision, Veraval. It is not necessary to refer to all the earlier services as they have no bearing on the issue. Ultimately, he was appointed by the aforesaid order. The petitioner was posted at Balasinor as a Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health and Sanitary Sub-Division and he worked on the said post between 07.07.2000 to 30.11.2000. After he was relieved from Balasinor on 30.11.2000, the dome of the water tank, which was being constructed and supervised by the petitioner, collapsed on 15.12.2000 after 15 days of his relieving from Balasinor. The collapse of dome resulted into eight deaths of the labourers. Thereafter, two Chief Executive Engineers namely, Shri P.K. Shah and Shri R.J. Suthar visited the site alongwith the other officers and submitted a preliminary report and the same was forwarded to the Vigilance Commissioner, Gujarat State, alongwith the communication dated 18.09.2001. The Vigilance Commission addressed a letter dated 27.06.2002 instructing the Board to take necessary penal actions against the petitioner and two other engineers and, thereafter, a chargesheet was issued on 07.08.2002 to the aforesaid delinquents including the present petitioner. Inquiry Officer namely, Mr.S.K. Shah, was appointed for presiding over the inquiry. After a detailed inquiry, the Inquiry Officer furnished his inquiry report dated 14.07.2003 holding the charges as proved.

(3.) The first submission advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Asthavadi appearing for the petitioner is that the inquiry is required to be vitiated since the same is held by a non-technical person. He has submitted that for holding the inquiry of collapsing the dome, the inquiry officer should have been well conversant with the technicalities and since the Inquiry Officer, Mr.S.K. Shah, was not aware about the technicalities, the petitioner objected to the same. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Asthavadi has placed reliance on the circular dated 28.03.1999 and the Resolution dated 02.07.2001. He has submitted that as per the said Resolution and circular, the Board should have employed a person, who was having a technical knowledge instead of the retired employee, Mr.S.K. Shah. Thus, he has submitted that on this ground, the inquiry is required to be vitiated.