N K KARANGIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of penalty passed against the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat R & B Division No.2, Jamnagar dated 16.03.2002. By the impugned order,the petitioner is subjected to penalty of withholding of increment with future effect. The said penalty order is challenged before this Court. The Learned Single Judge of this Court as back as on 16.12.2002 admitted the petition which has now reached for final hearing. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was serving as a permanent work -charge Mistry under respondent No.3 i.e. Executive Engineer, Panchayat R & B Division No.2, Jamnagar.

(2.) THE petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 13.04.2001 which was followed by a showcause notice dated 31.05.2001. In the show -cause notice, the petitioner has been informed as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that even though certain works were not carried out, which was to be carried out through section officer, payment for the same was made, without informing the same to the higher authority, which resulted into financial loss. The aforesaid first show -cause notice dated 31.05.2001 was replied by the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that he was not concerned with the work in question. According to him, he has to carry out his duties as per the orders of the Higher Officers.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , another show -cause notice was issued on 18.10.2001 informing him as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The impugned order was passed on 16.3.2002. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also asked for certain documents by his application dated 05.11.2001 which is at page -32 in the compilation, in which he requested to provide duty roster of work -charge Mistry and particulars about when the tenders were issued etc. However, it is an admitted fact that no documents were supplied to the petitioner as demanded and subsequently, the impugned order was straightaway passed. In the impugned order, the Disciplinary Authority has considered report given by the Inquiry Officer in case of another co -employee wherein reference in connection with present petitioner was made. The Disciplinary Authority has found that Superior of Mr. Joshi, Assistant Engineer found guilty and he accepted his mistake. In the order, it is found that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duty and accordingly his one increment was withheld with future effect.