A.V.HATHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed these two separate petitions. However, as the issues raised by the petitioner in both these petitions pertain to departmental inquiry and departmental order against the petitioner and as the facts raised in both these petitions are identical, at the request of learned Advocate for the parties, both these petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry was not proceeded in accordance with law as several documents, though demanded by the petitioner, were not supplied and therefore, defence of the petitioner could not be completed. Before this Court also, on the basis of the pleadings made in the petition, learned Advocate has tried to explain that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not just and proper, as against each allegation, the petitioner was able to offer proper explanation. The petitioner has tried to explain charges by submitting that in reply to charge (I) the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was not provided with the copies of the documents the petitioner does not admit any of the charges. The work of developing the plot used to be done after obtaining the appropriate resolutions from the concerned Gram Panchayat. The work of ditch repairing was done through the concerned gram Panchayats and the payments of the work done were used to be made after obtaining the certificate from the Deputy Executive Engineer (R & B), Bhuj and subject to the Rules. With respect to developing the ideals plots at village Bhitara, Chchchle Bhagadie and Luna, the petitioner submitted that Banni Vikas Yojana being a collective work the sad work was done as per the written demand from the Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that in past prior to the time, the petitioner served under the yojna, the Ideal plots were developed in those three villages and the relevant Information should be available with the office. The petitioner with respect lo the statements of Deputy Sarpanch of Bhllara (the copy of which was never supplied to the petitioner) submitted that as the head of the village, the Sarpanch and Tatati-cum-Mantri used to act on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner had not received any complaint. it was further stated that for the work done except during 29/10/1997 to 31/3/1998, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The work done in 10 villages of removal of unwanted growth of baral and such other weeds and leveling of pilot etc. was satisfactory and the rojkam was done by the committee after 9 months end, therefore, the petitioner does not admit the allegation of incomplete work and unsatisfactory work. The petitioner, with respect to the charge No. (ii) submitted that In November 1997 a proposal was certainly made to the Director, Animal Husbandry for purchase of 14,00,000 kgs. grass and 5600 kgs. grass seeds in the year 1907-08 and a coy of it was given to the Divisional Join Director, Animal Husbandry, Rajkot. The said proposal was placed in the meeting held at Gandhinagar in November, 1997, headed by the Additional Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative and pursuant to that the grant allocated to Gujarat Ecology Commission, Vadodara was diverted to Banni Vikas Yojna, Bhuj. The petitioner submitted that this issue could in more detail have been discussed if the copies of the documents applied for by the petitioner was made available to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that he does not admit the charge No.(ii). The petitioner further stated that the non grant of the copies of the documents was injudicious. The petitioner submitted that opportunity is not given and one sided biased approach is adopted. The petitioner stated that the nutrition value report was obtained of the concerned grass from Anand Veterinary College and the same was available with the office of the Director, Animal Husbandry and hence on the basis or alleged the subjective opinion of Banni cattle owners of the area, no charge could be levelled against the petitioner ignoring the scientific report and without any other rational basis. The petitioner with respect to charge No.(iii)) as aforesaid, submitted that the grass was required to be kept in open because there was no godown facility available at village Luna and as such the godown was under construction. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be held liable for causing any loss to the State Government on this account."

(3.) As against this, learned AGP has opposed the petition submitting that chronology of events would suggest that procedural aspects is thoroughly complied with and the petitioner was issued with the necessary charge sheet with imputation of charges. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing and though contentions raised are of non-supply of documents, but there is in fact, only a ground for the sake of raising a ground. Otherwise, all relevant documents have been supplied and in any case, the petitioner has not pointed out anything to indicate that such alleged non-supply of the documents has prejudicially affected the defence of the petitioner.