H. L. PANDYA Vs. GUJ. AGRI. UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 5th April 1978, whereby the petitioner who was working as College Registrar, N. M. College of Agriculture, Navsari, at the relevant point of time came to. be reverted to the post of Office Superintendent and was posted in the office of the Vice Chancellor in Comptroller Section with immediate effect. This order of reversion followed a departmental inquiry instituted against him by the Office Order dated 23rd October 1977. The charge levelled against the petitioner was twofold, namely, (i) that he had tampered with the notes and papers of Cashier and In-charge Accounts Officer; and (ii) that he had drawn full month's salary even though his leave was not sanctioned by the competent authority. Both these acts of alleged misconduct were taken as serious lapses on the part of the petitioner who was at the relevant point of time working as the Accounts Officer at Navsari. A departmental inquiry was held against him by Dr. V. D. Mane, Registrar of the University, who after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner was served with a copy of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and was called upon to state why he should not be reverted to the next lower position of Office Superintendent for the alleged misconduct. In answer to the said show cause notice the petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 17th February, 1978. The Vice Chancellor of the University examined all the papers concerning the "inquiry as well as the reply of the petitioner and his telegram dated 28th March, 1978 and came to the conclusion that in view of the established misconduct, the petitioner ought to be reverted to the next lower post. Against this order the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition, Special Civil Application No. 674 of 1978, but the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had a statutory right of appeal to the Board of Management and since the period of limitation for filing the appeal had not expired, he could approach the appellate forum to ventilate his grievance. The Board was directed to decide the appeal by 30th June 1978. The petitioner's appeal, however, came to be dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition.

(2.) Ordinarily, this Court is loath to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority charged with the duty to impose punishment; but when the punishment appears to be disproportionate to the established guilt, and one which is likely to adversely affect the career of the delinquent, the Court has no alternative but to interfere in the interest of justice. Taking an overall view of the matter, in the instant case while imposing the punishment, the backdrop in which the petitioner so behaved was lost sight of and that is why a serious view was taken, more so because the delinquent was working as an Accounts Officer, and the punishment of reversion was passed. However, when all the facts and circumstances are weighed it does appear that the punishment imposed is harsh and it would be proper to substitute it by a punishment of withholding of one increment without future effect.