JASUBHAI RUPABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Civil Application is preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 27.5.2006 passed by the District Primary Education Officer, Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha and confirmed by the District Education Officer by order dated 13.7.2007 by which the petitioner was removed from the service as Primary School Teacher, Prantvel by imposing punishment under sub -Rule 5 of Rule 6 of Panchayat Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1977 in violation of Rule 8 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1997. The prayer sought for by the petitioner in paragraph No.32 (A) reads as under:

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case narrated in the list of events of the petition are as under:

(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr Y N Oza has vehemently submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the principles of natural justice and, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that without holding departmental inquiry, and without considering the averments made in the appeal memo and without any evidence, major punishment is imposed on the petitioner. In fact, the respondent authorities have relied on the report Annexure 'A' and issued charge sheet to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the impugned order is in complete breach of Rule 8 of the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 (for short, "the Rules") and the impugned order is passed at the behest of political vengeance as narrated in para 7 of the petition with a view to take undue advantage by extending assurances and promises to the petitioner and persuade the petitioner to plead guilt. He has then submitted that the respondent authorities ought to have supplied copy of the statement on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed in violation of natural justice and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Advocate that the impugned orders suffers from patent error inasmuch as the punishment was based upon the assurances and promises extended to the petitioner by the District Primary Education Officer and that major penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of acceptance of guilt by the delinquent. Admission of guilt alone should not be regarded as sufficient proof of misconduct and thus, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.