J A KHIMSURIA IMV Vs. STATE OF GUAJRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a thoroughly misconceived petition filed by the present petitioner, who has been convicted in a corruption case by the Special Court and even after his conviction he wants to continue in service. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16-7-2005, which is at Annexure-A to this petition. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department, by the aforesaid order dismissed the petitioner from service by resorting to Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said order of dismissal is passed in view of the fact that the petitioner is convicted in an anti-corruption case being Special Case No.11/1992. The petitioner is convicted by the Sessions Court by inflicting one year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/- by order dated 15-10-2004.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was subjected to show cause notice dated 31st March, 2005. However, said show cause notice is not produced on record and only the reply given to the said show cause notice is produced on record. When Mr.Joshi is confronted with this aspect, he has requested the Court to take said show cause notice on record. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 31st March, 2005, is taken on record. As per the aforesaid show cause notice given to the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the fact that he is convicted in a serious offence. The petitioner, thereafter, gave a reply to the said show cause notice on 11th April, 2005, which is finding place at page 21, Annexure-C. The petitioner has pointed out in the said reply that he has not committed any offence and he is wrongly convicted. The petitioner also pointed out in his reply that a full-fledged departmental inquiry is required to be held. The petitioner has also pointed out in his reply that against the conviction he has already filed an appeal and it is admitted and till the said appeal is decided by the High Court, the petitioner cannot be removed from service. After considering the reply of the petitioner, impugned order of dismissal is passed by the authority, which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the department has committed an error in dispensing with the departmental inquiry as the department was required to hold full-fledged departmental inquiry as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Bombay Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, as according to him, before imposing any major penalty regular departmental inquiry is contemplated. Mr.Joshi further submitted that alternatively the authority should have considered whether it is a fit case for dismissing the petitioner or any other lesser penalty can be inflicted on the petitioner. It is also submitted by him that the department should have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter appropriate order should have been passed, as deemed fit. He also submitted that before passing the impugned order, no consultation is made with GPSC and according to him such consultation is necessary before imposing a major penalty.