ISHWARLAL C. PATEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VALSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, etc. setting aside the judgment and order dated August 12, 1991 passed by the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal below Appeal No. 144/91 and also declare that the penalty imposed by the Collector, Valsad, dated February 18, 1991 is illegal, ultra vires and bad in law. It is the case of the petitioner that a charge -sheet was issued against him for refusing to go for recording dying declaration in spite of the direction given by his superior officer and without holding inquiry as required by Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rule, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect had been passed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as impugned order is concerned, it is one of the major penalties mentioned in Rule 6 of the Rules as it comes to reduction to a lower timing scale and therefore it can be said to be major penalty within the meaning of Rule 6 of the said Rules. For the said purpose, she relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwanl Singh Gill v. State of Punjab reported in (1990) 4 JT 70. The Supreme Court in that case held that the order directing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would fall within one of the major penalties. If it is so, then it is an undisputed fact that the procedure laid down in Rule 9 is required to be followed. It is also undisputed fact that the procedure which has been followed by the authorities is on the basis of Rule 11 relating to the minor penalties and the procedure for imposing major penalty has not been followed. This could not have been done. On this ground alone, the petition is required to be allowed. The respondent authority is, however, at liberty to follow proper procedure in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules and to pass an appropriate order according to law.