S.K.TADVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the two concurrent orders passed by the respondent authority and to be precise, following reliefs are prayed:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belonged to Adivasi community and was appointed as Surveyor in Land Record Department on 10/5/1974. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Maintenance Surveyor on 20/4/2001. The petitioner was served with a notice dtd. 13/6/2005, seeking explanation about the irregularities/ defects found during the inspection and in connection with that, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dtd. 30/9/2005. The petitioner replied on 7. 4.2006 and having found that the explanation is not satisfactory, it was decided to conduct a departmental inquiry and after granting full opportunity to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 11/9/2006 and out of four charges leveled against the petitioner, two charges have been held to be proved. Subsequent to that, for the purpose of inflictment of major penalty, a notice was given on 16/10/2006 and after considering the stand of the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 11/1/2007, whereby the petitioner was downgraded in pay scale from pay scale of Rs.5800.00 to the pay scale of Rs.5600.00 with effect from 1/1/2007 and it was decided to stop all subsequent increments with future effect. The said order having been passed under Rule 6(4) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted his representation on 20/2/2007, requesting the respondent No.1 to review the order of penalty. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, on 27/2/2007, suddenly, an order came to be passed retiring compulsorily the petitioner from services with effect from 27/2/2007 in exercise of power under Rule 10(4)(5) of Chapter-III of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and, along with that, three months ' pay has been paid in lieu of notice.

(3.) Against this action initiated by the respondent authority, the petitioner made representation on 28/3/2007 reiterating again that the action may be recalled, but no attention was paid to, as a result of that, the petitioner was constrained to prefer an appeal on 28/5/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 without considering the stand of the petitioner and relevant documents, was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 21/8/2007, which has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner and as a result of this, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said action of the respondent authority, both the impugned orders, as stated above, have been made the subject matter of the present petition for assailing the same.