G I CHOPDA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged two orders. One is the order passed by the tribunal dated 13.2.1998 in Appeal No. 374 of 1995 wherein the Gujarat State Civil Service Tribunal has modified the order of recovery of Rs. 33637.90 from the petitioner and has reduced the amount of recovery by ordering that a sum of Rs.23,637.90 only be recovered and not an amount of Rs. 33,637.90 from the appellant present petitioner. It has also ordered that any excess recovery over and above Rs.23,637.90 if already made from the petitioner may be reimbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of the said order.

(2.) During the course of hearing of this petition, learned AGP Mr.Gohil appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that before the tribunal, the petitioner has made clear statement that if the amount of recovery is reduced by Rs.10,000.00 and if the relief is given to that extent, then, the petitioner is prepared to pay the rest of the amount of recovery as per the modifications made by the tribunal. Considering such clear statement made by the petitioner before he tribunal, the tribunal has modified the order of recovery by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.23,637.90 instead of Rs.33,637.90 as has been ordered as per the original order of recovery and, therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with such just and proper order based on the statement made by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Supehia for the petitioner has not disputed this fact. In view of this, the tribunal has reduced the amount of recovery by reducing the amount of Rs.10,000.00 from the total amount of Rs.33,637.90 and subsequently the petitioner has paid the same as mentioned in the order of the collector at page 60 and, therefore, according to my opinion, the tribunal has committed no error in modifying the order of recovery and therefore, so far as the said challenge is concerned, no interference is warranted.

(3.) The second order challenged by the petitioner in this petition is the order of the District Collector, Ahmedabad dated 17th November, 1998 wherein the Collector has treated the period of suspension as such. It has been observed in the said order by the collector that by order dated 20.5.98, an amount of Rs. 23,637.00 has been ordered to be recovered which has been accepted by the petitioner and has deposited the said amount in the Government and the said order of recovery has been passed by way of punishment and, therefore, period from 27.1.87 to 12.2.90 during which the petitioner was placed under suspension was treated as such under rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules. Learned advocate Mr. Supehia has submitted that before deciding that question, and before deciding to treat the period of suspension as such, the Collector has not afforded an opportunity as contemplated under rule 152 of the said Rules and, therefore, said order is violative of the principles of natural justice. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in 1999 (1) GLH 150, in case of Ramsunder Shamlal v. Y.B. Jhala or his successor, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedaba and others. The Division Bench of this Court has considered rule 152 of the said Rules in the said decision wherein the Division Bench of this court has considered the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Vrajlal Hansraj Sanghrajka reported in XIII 1972 GLR page 689. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, he has submitted that before deciding as to whether the period of suspension should be treated as a period to have been spent on duty or as suspension, it is necessary for the authority to afford reasonable opportunity to the employee concerned. Relevant observations made in para 5 and 6 of the said decision reported in 1999 (1) GLH page 150 are reproduced as under: