VINUBHAI JIVRAMDAS PATEL Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Way Of Present Petition Under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantial reliefs :

(2.) This petition arises in the following factual background :

(3.) On Issuance Of Notice, An AffidavitInReply Came to be filed by the respondentGujarat Housing Board contending inter alia that the petitioner was an Assistant Engineer and was the Operational Head of the Department. He was responsible for daytoday execution of the schemes of the respondentBoard. It is further urged that reappreciation of evidence and documents is not permissible before the Court of law. The Court can merely look into the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice. The allegation with regard to the test carried out on bricks and other material, it is contended that the allegations are bereft of facts. It is further contended that inquiry concerning other employees has no relevance in the case of the petitioner. It is also the say of the respondent that the result of testing by GERI Laboratory cannot be depended upon by the petitioner since KBM Engineering Laboratory had carried out the tests and it is positively found that the bricks in general did not meet with the specification. It is further contended that the required standards are not maintained in relation to the concrete in the RCC slab, quality of tiles, etc. It was a result of poor workmanship that the bonding of the bricks was poor and joints were also very thick and adequate adhesion of the bricks was missing. It is further contended that nonsupply of documents was never agitated before the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was also informed to examine and collect the documents, however, he never turned up. It is also the say of the respondent that it is wrong to contend that previous sanction of the Government was not obtained while adopting the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. It is also the say of the respondent that the Deputy Executive Engineer was responsible for maintaining the quality. Shri G.D. Ratanpara, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, has been dealt with in the departmental inquiry and having found him guilty, he has also been compulsorily retired. It is the Assistant Engineer, who is responsible for defective workmanship. The reports have been taken after the earthquake since the Board had directed the KBM Engineer Research Laboratory prior to the earthquake based on the complaint received before the earthquake. According to the respondent, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by supplying the material and allowing the crossexamination of the witness. The tests were carried out in accordance with the I.S. Code and having found the defective material and poor workmanship, all the charges have been duly held to have been proved. He being the operational head and supervisor, it was his duty to convey to the higher officials the defect in material and workmanship both. Necessary documents have also been annexed with the reply.