R K POPAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 24.03.95 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, a copy of which is at Annexure 'E' to the petition.

(2.) The petitioner was originally recruited on 27.5.1968 as Sales Tax Officer Class II. He was promoted as Sales Tax Officer Class-I, and was thereafter further promoted as Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner. The petitioner was subjected to Charge Sheet in connection with various irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while serving as Sales Tax Officer Class-I and Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner. The charges alleged against the petitioner were of serious nature. An inquiry officer was appointed and a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in connection with the allegations levelled against him. In the charge sheet, it was alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner, without proper verification, gave registration to one Dhanamjay Oil Industries, Jamnagar. It was further alleged that the petitioner has not taken any proceedings against the said trader who has committed default in filling necessary forms, which resulted into a loss of Rs.1,55,880/_ to the State Government. It is also alleged against the petitioner that he wrongly gave registration to one Ramdevji Oil Industries. The said trader had not shown correct transaction in the books of accounts and had not paid sales tax dues to the tune of Rs.10,26,127/_ during S.Y. 2038, and has also not paid sales tax dues to the tune of Rs.13,05,989/_ during the period from 4.2.1983 to 8.9.1983. It is alleged that the petitioner has negligently, and on a wrong interpretation of law, gave registration to the said Ramdevji Oil Industries, which resulted into financial loss to the State Government. It is also alleged against the petitioner that inspite of the fact that a partnership firm in the name of JK Oil Industries, Jamnagar was dissolved, yet the petitioner had not cancelled the registration, and infact allowed amendment in the registration of the said firm. Ultimately it was found that the said trader had destroyed the register and the said trader had not paid sales tax due of Rs.5,91,840/_. It is also alleged against the petitioner that one Don Industries, Jamnagar was not holding licence under the Sales Tax Act, yet the said trader tried to mislead the department by stating that he is holding the licence, and it purchased certain articles against licence form, but the petitioner had not recommended any penal proceedings against the said trader. It is also alleged that the petitioner, as Sales Tax Commissioner, transferred about 34 Sales Tax Inspectors, and he has misused his position and has posted two Inspectors - namely: B.C. Jani and N.C. Patel in the Sales Tax Department, eventhough their credentials were highly doubtful. On the aforesaid serious charges, departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer ultimately found that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority thereafter inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement. The aforesaid order of punishment was initially challenged before this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 6565 of 1990. The Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of a group of petitions, disposed of this petition also, and allowed the same on the ground that at the time of inflicting punishment, copy of the Inquiry Report was not made available to the petitioner. It was, however, made clear in the judgment that the said decision will not preclude the Disciplinary Authority from reviving the proceedings from the stage of supply of the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer along with other material, and ultimately to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was set aside on the ground of non-supply of copy of Inquiry Officer's Report. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter gave a copy of the report of the inquiry officer to the petitioner by letter dated 22.4.1992. The petitioner was given copy of the inquiry officers report and the petitioner was asked to give his explanation in connection with the same. The petitioner gave a detailed reply by his letter dated 19.5.1992. The State Government, after considering the reply, again passed an order dated 24th March 1995, of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. A copy of the said order is at Annexure 'E' to the petition at pages 178-179. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Kariel, learned advocate for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that while passing the impugned order, the disciplinary authority has not given separate reasons, but it has merely stated that the reply of the petitioner dated 19.5.1992 is taken into consideration by the State and in the said reply, no new facts are stated and the petitioner has merely repeated his earlier reply. Accordingly, the same punishment is inflicted by which the petitioner is subjected to punishment of compulsory retirement. It is further submitted by Mr. Kariel that in the impugned order of punishment, detailed reasons are not given nor the detailed representation of the petitioner was taken into account. It was also submitted by Mr.Kariel that the penalty of compulsory retirement is on the higher side, and, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority should have inflicted punishment of withdrawal of few increments instead of awarding punishment of compulsory retirement. It is submitted by Mr. Kariel that as per the information of the petitioner, initially the disciplinary authority wanted to inflict punishment of withholding of few increments, but the GPSC disagreed with the same and recommended punishment of compulsory retirement, and therefore, the said order is passed.