DAHYABHAI J PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who died pending the petition and whose heirs are brought on record, has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 17/02/1990 as also the order of his suspension dated 09/09/1981. Though the petitioner also sought declaration that Rule 10 (3) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1986 is ultra virus to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India however, this prayer was not pressed by the petitioner as recored in the order dated 12/03/1990.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner, that he joined services as Extension Officer in year 1956 and promoted in the month of June, 1975 as Taluka Development Officer (TDO), however, came to be suspended by order dated 09/09/1981 and then was served with chargesheet dated 03/08/1982. Before he was suspended he had put in 31 years of blotless service. He filed two different petitions in the year 19881990, challenging his continuous suspension for more than 7 years. The petitioner has averred that the allegations in the chargesheet for irregularities committed by him in granting NonAgricultural permission (N. A.) were totally vague and the inquiry conducted against him was in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. It is his case that he was not provided the copies of documents relied in the inquiry. The petitioner has further averred that he granted N. A. Permissions as per the guidelines and the resolution of the State Government and he has not committed any illegality in granting such N. A. permissions. The petitioner has taken many other grounds in the petition to challenge the order of his dismissal from service.

(3.) The petition is opposed by affidavit -in -reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, stating that the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner was as per the procedure laid down in the rules and that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and based on the findings recorded by the inquiry Officer and considering the nature of charges, the disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. As regards the suspension, it is stated that the period of suspension of the petitioner cannot be said to be prolonged suspension and his suspension was for good reasons and in accordance with the rules and policy of the Government.