KAMLESHBHAI MAVABHAI SUTARIA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged oral order dtd. 14/12/2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9828 of 2007, by which, learned Single Judge upheld the order dtd. 28/11/1997 passed by Deputy District Development Officer, Panchmahal, Godhara, exercising his power conferred under Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and thereafter amended the said Rules in 1997, dismissed the services of the appellant and thereafter, the same was confirmed vide order dtd. 21/03/1998 by the District Development Officer, Godhara as well as Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.139 of 1998.

(2.) Short facts, arise from the record, are as under: The petitioner was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri. Thereafter, various complaints were made against him and a decision was taken to issue charge-sheet against him for holding the departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet was issued on 20/10/1994 inter alia contending various statements of the complainants, who had made complaint against the petitioner with regard to his conduct in dealing with the applications after taking money from them. The villagers had also made various complaints to the Sarpanch on 4/4/1994 in this regard and requested the District Development Officer to immediately transfer him. After the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer vide his report dtd. 3/4/1997 filed a detailed report holding the charges as proved against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued on 3/5/1997 to the petitioner calling upon him as to why any of the penalty of dismissal mentioned in Rule 5(9) of Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1972 (for short "the Rules") should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner accordingly gave his reply on 26/5/1997. After considering the aforesaid reply, by the order dtd. 28/11/1997, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the same by way of filing Appeal No.139 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the entire matter and facts, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer had examined 17 witnesses and perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report reveals that all the witnesses have deposed that the petitioner had harassed them by adopting the dilatory tactics in supplying the forms and copies of the revenue record like 7/12 extract, VIII-A etc. They were asked to pay various amounts to him for getting the copies of revenue record, for getting their applications signed for irrigation facility, processing of loan application and loan papers besides the application for sand lease. It is also proved in the inquiry that he had raised demand by threatening them that they would be harassed by invoking the Untouchability (offences) Act. The Inquiry Officer's report also reveals that the petitioner was offered full opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and on the basis of the evidence of 17 witnesses, the misconduct has been held to be proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was unable to prove to the contrary as no documentary evidence was produced by him as the charges levelled against the petitioner were very serious in nature. The only defense raised by him in reply to the show-cause notice on 26/5/1997 is that the Inquiry Officer had not invited his attention that as per the Rules, he was required to engage the advocate and hence, the inquiry proceedings are required to set aside. Another aspect, which is revealed from the reply to the show- cause notice is that he has alleged that the presenting officer has already made up his mind to impose the penalty. Except this, no defense is raised. After issuance of Notice by this Court, respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed grant of relief prayed by the appellant, by which, he sought quashment of all the aforesaid three orders passed by several authorities. Learned Single Judge after considering the contentions made on behalf of the appellant and relying upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr.B.Y.Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the authorities below as well as learned Single Judge have committed an error in accepting the order, which has been passed by the Inquiry Officer, without any material and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.