SURSINH BHURABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was recruited as Police constable in the year 1987 has filed this petition challenging the action of the respondents in dismissing him from service. A charge sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 20th October 1993 mainly alleging that at the time of entering the service while filling up form for applying for the post in question, the petitioner gave wrong information to the questions in column 8 (1), and column 10. It was alleged that in column 8{1), the petitioner was required to answer whether he was earlier engaged in any institution including the police force. The petitioner answered the question in the negative. Similarly, in column No. 10 the question was whether any case is conducted against the. petitioner for a criminal offence, if yes, what is the result and if there is conviction, details of such conviction to be given. In answer to this question also, the petitioner replied in the negative. It was alleged that both these answers given by the petitioner were factually incorrect since the petitioner was earlier recruited in the Police force on 24.2.85 and was thereafter terminated from service on 1.6.83. It was further alleged that the case under the Bombay Prohibition Act was registered against the petitioner and thus the petitioner had given wrong information with respect to both these questions.

(2.) Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found that the charges have been proved and imposed punishment of reverting the petitioner to the lowest pay-scale for a period often years. The reviewing authority, however, found that the charges were serious and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, enhanced the penalty to that of dismissal from service by the order dated 9th July 1999. The petitioner challenged this order before the higher authorities and the State Government by the order dated 1st April 2000 was pleased to reject the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this petition challenging the abovemcntioned orders adverse to him.

(3.) During the course of the arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has not made out any grounds for challenging the procedure adopted during the course of the departmental inquiry. No allegations have been made to the effect that there was any breach of principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. The counsel for the petitioner has however confined his submissions on two grounds. Firstly it is submitted that the charges were wrongly held to have been proved since the petitioner had given correct answers to both the questions. In the alternative, it is submitted that the penalty imposed is harsh and excessive and the charges cannot be labelled as grave charges calling for extreme penalty of dismissal from service.