J S PATHAN Vs. GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises the issue about the fairness in holding the inquiry against the petitioner under the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as peon in the Gujarat Agricultural University on or about 9-10-1973 and, thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Clerk by order dated 15-12-1976. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Clerk by order dated 28-4-1982. At the relevant time, the petitioner was appointed in the Aspee College of Nutritional Science, a college of Home Science and Food Technology, Gujarat Agricultural University, Sardar Krushi Nagar, Dantiwada. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 18-6-1985 stating that the petitioner has remained absent without leave; that he has tampered with the University record concerning his leave and that he is in habit of leaving the office premises during office hours without permission. It was stated, in the charge-sheet that if the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, he may appropriately be punished under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. However, proposed penalty, minor or major, was not specified. He was required to submit his reply to the said charge-sheet. After holding the inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and he was given a notice dated 28-1-1986 against the proposed punishment of dismissal under Rule 7.2 calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty and, finally, by order dated 8-5-1986, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2A. Two contentions have been put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, it was contended by the learned Counsel that the inquiry itself is vitiated inasmuch as it has been held in breach of the principles of natural justice. His grievance is that he has not been afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself; that the inquiry officer has pre-determined guilt of the petitioner; that the petitioner was not allowed access to some of the relevant documents and that the witnesses were not examined in his presence and he was not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. In the second place, it was contended that even if inquiry is held to be valid, the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 28-1-1986 is vitiated inasmuch as the same has been made without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and irrelevant factors were taken into consideration which goes to show the non-application of mind of the respondents to the question of measure of punishment to be imposed on the charge proved.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-University vehemently contest, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.