MAHENDARSINH N. JADEJA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dtd. 6/3/2006 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar rejecting Appeal No. 90 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner, wherein and whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order of dismissal dtd. 1/6/2004 passed by the Deputy District Development officer (Revenue), Jamnagar District Panchayat, and the appellate order dtd. 16/12/2004 passed by the District Development Officer, Jamnagar. A further prayer is also made to quash and set aside the order dtd. 11/4/2019 passed by District Development Officer, Jamnagar.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Godown Keeper-cum-clerk from 20/9/1980 for the stock meant for Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) from 27/7/1985 to 16/9/1997. The Programme Officer in charge of ICDS drew the notice of the panchayat authorities to certain defaults in respect of the management of the Godown at Kalavad. The internal auditors of Jamnagar District Panchayat brought out certain serious irregularities and suspected defalcation in respect of the food articles meant for ICDS.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 is highly disproportionate to the guilt established and, therefore, not tenable in law. It is submitted that while the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner for the same allegation and charge leveled against him, the respondent authorities have chosen to conduct disciplinary action and before conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the disciplinary authority has passed order of removal from service disqualifying him for future employment under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1997. It is submitted that thereafter, the criminal court had decided on 26/5/2005 giving clean acquittal to the petitioner for the same allegation and charge. It is submitted that since the order of clean acquittal was not available during the disciplinary proceedings it was pointed out before the Tribunal at the time of deciding the appeal.