C V PILLAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Dabhi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is serving in the Forest Department. He was placed under suspension on 1-10-1983. Thereafter on 15-10-1983 he was served with charge-sheet. On 30-1-1985, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and found that certain charges are proved against the petitioner. On 24-9-1985 the petitioner was given a show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Officer which came to be replied by the petitioner and ultimately on 15-3-1986 the petitioner was dismissed from the service. On 7-2-1987 the appeal came to be filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal and the Tribunal directed to hold inquiry de novo and the appeal of the petitioner came to be allowed to that extent. The inquiry was held again and on 30-11-1990 the Inquiry Officer at the conclusion of the inquiry exonerated the petitioner from the charges on the ground that the charges are not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the reasons for disagreement and issued notice for punishment to the petitioner as per the notice dated 6-9-1992, calling upon the petitioner to show as to why the petitioner should not be compulsorily retired. The petitioner filed reply and the Disciplinary Authority instead of retiring the petitioner compulsorily, took the decision of withholding five increments with future effect by way of punishment ultimately as per the decision dated 13-3-2000. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forest against the decision of imposing punishment of withholding five increments with future effect. In the said appeal the Appellate Authority treated the period of suspension on duty for the purpose of pension. However, simultaneously, the Appellate Authority also took decision to recover the amount of Rs.50,233/= from the petitioner by enhancing the penalty. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached before this Court.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing has been given, nor was the petitioner put to the notice regarding the enhancement or modification in the order of penalty by enhancing the penalty.