K.G. PATEL Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this appeal is that in a case wherein Disciplinary and Inquiry Authority are different and upon completion of inquiry, Disciplinary Authority takes a different view on conclusion than the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer on the charges or any of the charge, then what procedure is to be followed? In substance, the extent of applicability of the principles of natural justice, in such a situation, is in issue. The facts relevant for the present appeal are very few : Mr. K. G Patel, the then Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C., Sanand, Ahmedabad (Rural) was dismissed from service by order dated 5.9.2002 (Annexure-G) in pursuance to conclusion reached in the inquiry. In the inquiry, there were six charges against him. All the charges were for indulging in corruption. The Inquiry Officer found that Charge Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 are not proved, while charge No. 2 was found to be proved and charge No. 3 was found to be partly proved. Then upon considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority found that charge No. 6 is also proved from the material on record. The Disciplinary Authority gave show-cause notice, validity of which is in issue herein. The delinquent had then, made a representation. Thereafter, an order of dismissal, as stated above, came to be passed.

(2.) The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal in Special Civil Application No. 485/2003. Being aggrieved by the order in Special Civil Application No. 485/2003, the appellant-petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. Jal S. Unwala, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 2-State.