GORDHANBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the State Government-respondent No. 1 herein on 12/12/1979 by which two increments of the petitioner without future effect are ordered to be stopped.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was serving as an extra Aval Karkoon in the Office of the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar in the year 1970; that by virtue of his duty as an Aval Karkoon he has certified an entry in respect of land bearing Survey No. 203 of Village Valsad in Gandhinagar District on 11/06/1970. The petitioner certified an entry in respect of a new tenure land. He was informed by the Talati immediately thereafter that a proceeding regarding the breach of conditions of new tenure was pending against the petitioner and that notice to the tenant of the said land with respect to entry or certification thereof was not given. The petitioner thereupon erased and cancelled the endorsement by which he has certified the entry made by him after he was appraised of the above fact by the Talati. The said correction was made by the petitioner on the same day, i.e., on 11/06/1970 in the Register. On 5/01/1977 a memorandum was issued to the petitioner by which two charges have been levelled against him alleging that he has committed misconduct in performance of his duties by tampering with the Government record and by making correction in the entry in the revenue record. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to submit his explanation as to why any of the penalties specified in Rale 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") be not imposed on him. The petitioner submitted detailed reply on 11/03/1978 contending that the charges levelled against him were without foundation, that he had acted bona fide in making correction of mistake which was administrative in nature and there was no question of taking any disciplinary proceedings. It appears that the authorities were not satisfied about the explanation submitted by the petitioner and inquiry was instituted against the petitioner to enquire into the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer after examining the witnesses and considering the oral and documentary evidence produced before him submitted a report on 18/09/1979 and found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. In other words, the petitioner was exonerated from both the charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent, however, differed and disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer but without issuing any notice to the petitioner and/or affording any opportunity of being heard reached a decision on 4/12/1979 and pased an order on 12/12/1979 which is impugned in the present petition stating therein that the Government did not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the charge No. 2 though it agreed with the findings regarding charge No. 1 and passed the impugned order directing that two annual increments of the petitioner without any future effect are stopped.

(3.) Mr. H. B. Shah who appeared for the petitioner contended that the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside inter alia on the grounds that; (i) it is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as even though the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, the Government differed from the said findings and without giving any opportunity of being heard and without observing principles of natural justice held the petitioner guilty which cannot be done; (ii) that the reasons which are required to be recorded by the Government have not been recorded. On both these grounds, the order requires to be quashed and set aside.