J.D. VASHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13665 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that on 23.5.1995, charge -sheet was issued to the appellant. Thereafter, Departmental Inquiry was initiated and in the meantime, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation. The disciplinary proceedings were continued and vide order dated 16.9.2008, penalty of cut in pension of Rs. 500/ - per month for five years was imposed. As per the appellant, there was identical charge in the criminal case and in the said criminal case, he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 2241 of 1994. However, the said order of acquittal was not considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment. The appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 1120 of 2008, challenging the action of the disciplinary authority for imposition of punishment. This Court, vide order dated 26.2.2009, set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter after taking into account the order of acquittal of the criminal Court. The appellant, based on the order passed by this Court in SCA No. 1120 of 2008, made representation, including on the aspect of acquittal. The date was fixed initially by respondent No. 1 -Secretary of the Panchayat Department, but as per the appellant, he could not remain present on account of the ill -health and thereafter, DDO -respondent No. 2 had called upon the appellant to remain present. The appellant remained present, made submissions and thereafter, DDO -respondent No. 2 herein passed the order dated 7.5.2009 at Annexure -M to the Special Civil Application, whereby he found that there is no case for reconsideration of the penalty imposed. Under these circumstances, the appellant preferred the petition being SCA No. 13665 of 2009 before this Court. The learned Single Judge found that the view taken by the disciplinary authority was just and proper and, therefore, did not interfere with the impugned order before him and dismissed the petition. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.

(3.) IT is undisputed position that in the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by this Court in SCA No. 1120 of 2009, following direction was issued: -