VAHALJIBHAI DAMABHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16th September, 1996 (Annexure-I to the petition) whereby the punishment of the petitioner is substituted from removal to compulsory retirement. It is stated by Mr.J.R.Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that even on account of this punishment of compulsory retirement, a stigma remains attached to the career of the petitioner and he is deprived of the post retiral benefits like pension, etc.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as a District Education Officer (D.E.O.), Ahwa District:Dang, the post to which he was transferred in March-1974 and continued to serve till 16th February, 1976. It is the case of the respondent authority that while his tenure as D.E.O., Dang between December-1974 to July-1975, the petitioner claimed First Class fare by making false claims, though he did not actually travel by First Class in Railway. A Chargesheet dated 23rd February, 1998 was served to the petitioner and he was called upon to state as to why the above charge, if held proved, should not be considered as good and sufficient ground for imposing upon him any of the punishment specified in Rule-6 of G.C.S. (D & A) Rules, 1971. Along with the chargesheet, a statement of imputations was annexed setting out the dates on which the petitioner travelled between Ahmedabad and Bilimora. It was stated in the statement of imputations that "on enquiry with the Rly. Authorities, it is learnt that no first class tickets were issued on these days from concerned stations." It is further stated in the statement of imputations that, "he had, therefore, not travelled by the 1st class, but had claimed the 1st class fare. He had, thereby, made false T.A. claims of his travel by the 1st class in Rly. Whereas he had not actually travelled in it." Along with the chargesheet, a statement of evidence was also enclosed wherein the documents which were referred to and relied upon were mentioned i.e. (i) a letter addressed by Directorate of Education to the Railway Station Master, Bilimora; (ii) a letter addressed by the Senior Superintendent, Ahmedabad Railway Station, to the Director of Education; (iii) a letter addressed by the Directorate of Education to the Railway Station Master, Ahmedabad; and, (iv) a letter addressed by the Station Master, Bilimora to the Directorate of Education. It is surprising that the authorities did not rely upon the T.A. Bills, which will be the basic and fundamental documents in connection with the charge in question. Not only that, even after judgement and order dated 27th May, 1996 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1084 of 1986, the authorities did not consider various aspects, which, the Court had directed in terms to consider while deciding the case of the petitioner afresh.

(3.) When a person claims that he has travelled from Bilimora to Ahmedabad by First Class and if it is not impermissible for him to travel that distance in different breaks (parts) i.e. by travelling from Bilimora to Surat; from Surat to Vadodara; and from Vadodara to Ahmedabad, the certificate issued by the Station Master, Bilimora to the effect that on a given date, no ticket from Bilimora to Ahmedabad was issued for First Class, cannot disprove the aforesaid claim of the person concerned. To prove that the person had not travelled by First Class from Bilimora to Ahmedabad, some convincing evidence was required and more so, after the judgement and order of this Court, which directed the authorities to look into the matter taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner.