UPENDRA R SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is twofold. The first challenge is made to the order dated 18.11.2005, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the penalty of reduction of one increment in the pay being drawn by the petitioner in the payscale of Rs.5500-175-9000,for one year, with future effect, has been imposed pursuant to departmental proceedings initiated against him. The second order impugned in the petition is dated 20.01.2007, passed by respondent No.3, whereby the request of the petitioner to regularize the period of suspension with effect from 04.10.2001 to 27.12.2005, has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case as emerging from the record are that, the petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk under respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhavnagar. During the course of his service, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 04.10.2001, passed by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner was served a chargesheet dated 22.04.2003. The single charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs.1,16,255/- towards telephone bills, for a considerably long period of time after the said amount was withdrawn by him for this purpose. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed temporary misappropriation of money from the public exchequer and committed misconduct as per Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 ("the Rules, 1971" for short). The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 25.07.2003, denying the charge against him on the ground that, as he had paid the amount of the bills, though belatedly, it cannot be said that he has committed any misconduct. The departmental proceedings commenced after the appointment of an Inquiry Officer. Before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted a written statement of defence dated 29.12.2003, wherein he took the defence that his wife was ill during the relevant period of time, therefore, he was under mental tension, which affected his memory, resulting in the delayed payment of the telephone bills. The Inquiry Officer submitted his Report dated 05.01.2004, finding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved.

(3.) It may be noted that simultaneously, criminal proceedings had also been initiated against the petitioner. By a judgment dated 23.04.2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, acquitted the petitioner of the charges under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that none of the charges against the petitioner were proved. The appeal of the State Government against the judgment of acquittal was also dismissed.