V G CHAMPANERI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was initially appointed as Oversear was subsequently promoted as Deputy Engineer and in 1973 he was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He was completing the age of 55 on 1st August 1979 Looking to his performance in service as Executive Engineer he was continued till the age of 58 and he would have otherwise retired on 31st August 1982 On 4th April 1979 a chargesheet (Annex A) was issued against the petitioner for four charges. A reply dated 21-7-79 (Annex B) was filed by the petitioner. A regular departmental inquiry was held and the inquiry officer submitted his report (Annex C) on 31-3-81. Out of the four charges only the first charge was found to have been proved against the petitioner for having found excess income of Rs. 19000 and 40 Tolas of gold. Rest of the charges were not found to be proved.

(2.) On 7-3-81 a notice (Annex D) was issued against the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the services as charge No. 1 was found to proved against him. A brief reply dated 31-1-81 (Annex E) was submitted by the petitioner pointing out that there is an error apparent in calculation of the amount and on 6-4-81 a detailed reply (Annex F) was filed. On receiving the reply dated 6 the petitioner was again asked by letter dated 3-11-81 (Annex G) to produce full proof evidence regarding 40 Tolas of gold which was replied to by the petitioner on 16-11-81 (Annex H). It is interesting to note that thereafter by an order dated 28-12-81 (Annex I) the petitioner was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar. The petitioner was to retire from service on reaching the age of 58 years i.e. on 31-8-82 but as he was more experienced and more competent a unanimous resolution (Annex J) was passed by the Executive Committee of the Panchmahals District Panchayat on 11 to extend the services of the petitioner for a further period of two years and to recommend the same to the Government. On 28-7-82 the District Development Officer recommended (Annex K) to the petitioner. However by an order dated 29 (Annex L) instead of dismissing the petitioner from the services he was removed from the services.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed this petition. At the time of admission Mr. Shah learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his challenge to the quantum of punishment only. Thereupon this Court issued notice and made it returnable on 16-8-82. On 16 the learned counsel for the respondents made a statement before this court that if the petitioner makes an application for pension to the Government such an application will he considered and disposed of within eight weeks from the receipt thereof. On that statement being made Mr. H.B. Shah learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew that petition. However it seems that it was not possible for the Government to consider the grant of pension in lieu of the order of removal passed against the petitioner. Therefore this petition was restored by an order passed in M.C.A. No. 1634/83 dated 5-5-83.