A. B. BHATT Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in this petition is the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 16th January 1981 holding the petitioner guilty of dereliction in his duties and imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of six months without future effect.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was working as a clerk in the establishment headed by respondent No. 2 at the relevant time. One Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 1972 came to be filed in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on 29th April 1972 which was an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. Notice of motion was also taken out in that proceeding on that very day. The matter was placed before the concerned Judge of the court on 1st May 1972 for the necessary first orders after its preliminary hearing. On that day the Court ordered issuance of notice to the defendants therein and also passed some prohibitory order against them and other Garnishees against whom the notice of motion was directed. It appears that, before the process could be served to the defendants, they appeared on 2nd May 1972 through their Advocate. It appears that on that very day the parties filed a compromise purshis along with one application for placing the matter urgently on the Board for the necessary orders with respect to the compromise purshis. The Registrar of the City Civil Court granted that application and ordered placing of the matter before the concerned Judge for the necessary orders. The papers of the case were lying in the Registry. The petitioner was assigned duties, inter alia, attending to the applications to sue in forma pauperis. It would mean that the papers of the said matter were with the petitioner at the relevant time. He appears to have placed the papers before the Court for necessary orders on that day itself, that is, on 2nd May 1972. There was also an application made by the applicants in that proceeding for refund of the court fees though a permission was sought for filing the suit in question in forma pauperis and that application was not decided one way or the other on that day. It appears that the applicants wanted to pay up the court fees payable on the plaint. The learned Judge was pleased to defer the passing of the order with respect to refund of the court fees till the court fees were in fact paid. That order was passed on 2nd May 1972. The Garnishees were required to pay the amount to the applicants in that case pursuant to the decree in terms of the compromise purshis. Later on, it came to light that the whole proceeding was fraudulent. The petitioner was suspected to have contributed to such a fraud by dereliction in his duties along with another official of that Court. Thereupon a charge-sheet came to be issued, inter alia, to the petitioner levelling an accusation of dereliction in his duties with respect to placement of papers of that matter before the learned Judge at the relevant time. Departmental inquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioner. It was registered as Departmental Inquiry No. 1 of 1980. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17th March 1980. He inter alia found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him, by his order on 2nd April 1980. It appears that respondent No. 1 in exercise of its review power under Rule 22 of the Gujarat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules' for brief) thought it fit to issue a show-cause notice on 5th July 1980 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be punished for dereliction in his duties in the episode. The petitioner submitted his reply showing cause why he should not be held guilty of dereliction in his duties at the relevant time and also why no punishment should be imposed on him on that count. It appears that respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with the cause shown by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice and thought it fit to hold him guilty of dereliction in his duties at the relevant time and to award the punishment of stoppage of one increment for six months without any further effect. That order was conveyed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner on 16th January 1981. The respondent No. 1 by its order dated 29th January 1981 clarified that the stoppage of the petitioner's increment would be with effect from 1st March 1981 and not from 1st October 1979. The petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary justis diction of this Court and has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1.

(3.) It becomes clear from the report of the inquiry officer that no oral evidence was led either by the Department or by the delinquent in the inquiry proceedings. It thus becomes clear that there was no oral evidence with respect to the duty of the petitioner at the relevant time to the effect that he as a petty clerk in the establishment of respondent No. 2 was required to inform the learned Judge that the compromise purshis was sought to be recorded in a proceeding which had yet to take the shape of a suit. In absence of any evidence on record, it would be difficult to hold petitioner guilty of dereliction in his duties in that regard. The learned Advocate for the respondents has not been able to bring to court's notice any provision of law showing that such was the duty of the petitioner at the relevant time. In that view of the matter, there was no warrant for holding the petitioner guilty of dereliction in his duties at the relevant time. Any of the guilt in that regard against the petitioner cannot therefore be sustained. If the petitioner cannot be held guilty of dereliction in his duties in that regard at the relevant time, no punishment can at all be inflicted on him on that account. Rule made absolute.