STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. G M DALWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the of Constitution of India has been preferred by the Commissioner of Transport, Gujarat State against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2000 passed by the learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar [hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] in Appeal No. 67 of 1999.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are as under :- The respondent-herein [hereafter referred to as, "the delinquent"] was appointed as a Junior Clerk under the Commissioner of Transport, the petitioner herein. On 12th October, 1995, a chargesheet came to be issued against the delinquent for the commission of acts of misconducts referred to therein. Pursuant to the said chargesheet, disciplinary inquiry was held against the delinquent. The Inquiry officer submitted his report on 29th November, 1997. The inquiry officer held that the imputation of charge made in respect of the various misconducts alleged to have been committed by the delinquent was proved. Pursuant to the said report, the records of the disciplinary inquiry and the final reply of the delinquent, by order dated 26th October, 1998 made by the disciplinary authority, the delinquent was ordered to be removed from service. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent preferred above referred Appeal No. 67 of 1999 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal under the impugned judgment. The order of punishment imposed upon the delinquent has been setaside. The delinquent has been ordered to be given all consequential benefits. Feeling aggrieved, the State Government has preferred the present petition.

(3.) The learned Tribunal has, having considered the evidence on record, held that the imputation of charge made against the delinquent was not proved. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the duplicate licence in question was issued by the delinquent under the instructions given by the concerned Clerk Shri Dudhrejia. The said duplicate licence was issued by the delinquent with a view to helping the said Shri Dudhrejia to lessen his burden. No ulterior motive or intention to defraud was proved against the delinquent. The Tribunal has also drawn adverse inference against the disciplinary authority for not examining the driver Narendra Kumar and the R.T.O agent-Rasikbhai. In the opinion of the Tribunal, had those two persons been exanined, several illegalities could have been detected. The Tribunal has also observed that it is the connon practice amongst the Governnent servants, Bank employees, etc. to offer and receive help fron one another. The Tribunal has also held that but for the request made by the said Shri Dudhrejia, the delinquent would not have issued the duplicate licence in question. The Tribunal has observed that the said defence has been taken by the delinquent at the first opportunity available. The action of the delinquent cannot be said to be unnatural. The Tribunal has not believed the evidence of Shri Dudhrejia on the premise that the said Shri Dudhrejia would not admit of his entrusting work to the delinquent. The Tribunal has also observed that the disciplinary authority has not given any reason why the delinquent should be visited with the punishment of removal and why a lesser punishment would not have been more appropriate.