MAHESANA DIST PANCHAYAT Vs. YADAV NANDLAL GOKLADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Archana Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.S. Sheth, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd.19/3/1984 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.209 of 1982 by the Court of learned Extra Assistant Judge, confirming the judgement and decree dtd.30/4/1982 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 1977 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Mehsana have filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent No.1 original plaintiff was appointed as an Operator on Work Charge Basis in Public Works Department on 16/9/1957 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Mechanic in the department of Tubewell Branch, Patan on 11/12/1961 and since thereafter, he worked as mechanic upto June, 1976. The Executive Engineer, Tubewell Branch of District Panchayat, Mehsana and Deputy Engineer, Tubewell Branch of Sidhpur Taluka Panchayat made some preliminary inquiry against the respondent No.1 - plaintiff on some anonymous application / complaint dtd.8/12/1971 wherein, it was alleged that the plaintiff has sold one Cooper Engines Crank Shaft with Fly-wheel on 20/11/1971. The plaintiff was, thereafter served with notice dtd.6/3/1972 which he replied on 18/3/1972. A departmental inquiry was proposed tobe made on the basis of the said application and the District Development Officer, Mehsana, after ordering a joint inquiry against as many as six persons inquired into the allegations, recorded findings of guilt and issued order of termination against the interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Development Officer, took up the matter to the Development Commissioner, who in his turn, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the District Development Officer, Mehsana for decision afresh. This time again the District Development Officer recorded findings against the interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff again preferred an appeal bearing No.177 of 1976 before the Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, but this time, the appeal was dismissed vide order dtd.27/8/1976. The plaintiff, thereafter, challenged the order passed by the District Development Officer and confirmed in appeal by the Development Commissioner, by filing Civil Suit No.43 of 1977. The plaintiff submitted before the Court that the Disciplinary Authority in case of the present plaintiff, who was a Mechanic, would be Executive Engineer and as no inquiry was made by the Executive Engineer or no order for a joint inquiry was made by the Executive Engineer under Rule 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the inquiry conducted by the District Development Officer, who otherwise was an appellate forum, was bad, void ab-initio and any order passed by the said officer could not act to prejudice of the plaintiff. It was also submitted that different yardsticks were applied for awarding different punishments and lastly it was submitted that the termination as punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the plaintiff prayed for a decree in his favour for his reinstatement along with the full back wages and consequential relief.