KANTILAL MOGHABHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner, who was a Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise (Class-11) seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 9/04/1986 removing him from service.

(2.) . By charge-sheet dated 1/09/1982 issued against the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed misconduct on the following counts enumerated in the charge-sheet : (1) While he was serving as temporary Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and was in In-Charge of Amreli District, he had issued D. S. VII licence for holding 350 bottles of alcohol and molasses for the period from 19-5-1981 to 31-3-1982 to one Jitendra Vasantrai Parikh and thereby flouted the instructions which were given by the Government for not issuing any such new dealers licence in respect of molasses and alcohol. (2) That he had issued D. S. VII licence to one Rameshchandra Somaya, resident of Tibi, Taluka Jaffrabad, Dist. Amreli on 29/03/1981 for selling denatured spirit. (3) Though an application made by one Girishkumar Manilal at Kunkavav for obtaining Poppy-2 licence in October 1980 was ordered to be filed pursuant to his statement dated 9/01/1981, the petitioner had issued Poppy-2 licence to him on 10/04/1981. (4) That he had issued D. S. VII licence to one Ranaji Vastaji for selling denatured spirit in bottles contrary to rules. (5) That he had issued Poppy 2 licence to Mansukhlal Vrajlal of Amreli, without making an enquiry, within a day with a view to favour the applicant.

(3.) . The Special Enquiry Officer for Gazetted Officers, Ahmedabad, submitted his report dated 30/07/1983 after holding an enquiry against the petitioner on the above charges which were detailed in Schedule 'A' of the Memorandum dated 1-9-1982 at Annexure 'C' to the petition. The Enquiry Officer found that all the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were established from the material on record. The record discloses that the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity of being heard during the enquiry. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued the show cause notice dated 2 2/12/1983 to enable him to show cause as to why the proposed action of dismissal from service should not be taken against the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was duly supplied to the petitioner with the second show cause notice. The petitioner responded by his reply dated 28/01/1984. It appears that he was given a personal hearing on 16- 7-1984 and he also gave further grounds for consideration under his communication dated 16/07/1984. The disciplinary authority, after considering the relevant papers, passed the impugned order dated 9/04/1986 at Annexure 'G' to the petition dismissing the petitioner from service.