RATHOD PRAVINSINH PUNABHAI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dtd. 20/2/2017 in the application No.86 of 2012 (New No.1555 of 2014) passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The challenge of the petitioner is to the action of the respondent to withhold three increments and asking for recovery of amount which is paid as part of the salary by treating only one increment. It is the case of the petitioner that without there being any order, the action of withholding of the three increments which is in the nature of major penalty.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Digant joshi and Dwijen Joshi for the petitioner submitted that while taking such action, leading to the major penalty of withholding of three increments, there is no hearing of the petitioner and therefore, such action is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate took this Court to the history of the litigation, wherein the petitioner earlier on two occasions had approached the Tribunal by filing various applications when departmental action was proposed against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by female student against the petitioner for misbehavior. On account of such inquiry, the petitioner's services were terminated which was also a subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on account of some technical reason was pleased to set aside the order terminating the services of the petitioner and had remanded the matter back to the authority for carrying out departmental inquiry from a particular stage.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that as a part of subsequent development, inquiry could not be concluded as there was a compromise arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner on the basis of which even the criminal prosecution was also terminated and the inquiry was also not proceeded and hence, the action against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint which was later on compromised was not proceeded any further. Therefore, the action of withholding increments and thereafter ordering recovery is not justified. It is submitted that in the facts of such case that the petitioner had filed an application before the Tribunal being Application No. 86 of 2012 (New No.1555 of 2014).