DAHYALAL N VORA Vs. SUDHIR MANKAD IAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr.Dahyalal N. Vora has preferred the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 168/81 on 13.9.83. The petitioner was working as a Professor in H.H. B. Kotak Institute of Science at Rajkot. One Shri Satyanarayan was his colleague and said Satyanarayan had gone on tour along with students as part of their educational programme in South India. Thereafter he had presented a bill to his office for reimbursement of certain claims. Present petitioner gave an application directly to the Vigilance Commission on 20.5.79 along with the xerox copy of the bill presented by Prof. Satyanarayan by alleging that said bill was false and Prof. Satyanarayan had misappropriated the amount of the said bill. After receipt of the said complaint, the Vigilance Commission had investigated the said complaint. During the investigation the Vigilance Commission had also summoned the present petitioner but ultimately it was found that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was not bona fide and true one. The Vigilance Commission accordingly submitted his report to the Director of Education. On receiving the said report, present petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the Director of Education calling upon him to explain the follwing charges :

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Director of Education, the present petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal at Gandhinagar being appeal No. 168/81 and the Tribunal decided the said appeal on 13.9.83 by partly allowing the same to the extent of deleting the order of Director of Education to enter the said punishment of censure in his service record and further observing that said punishment of Censure should not be considered for any other purposes during the service of the present petitioner.

(3.) It is vehemently urged by Mr. P.V. Hathi L.A. for the petitioner before me that no departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and without holding any departmental inquiry, present petitioner has been punished and penalty has been awarded to him and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have confirmed the said punishment. The punishment of Censure is minor penalty and if the provisions of the Civil Services Rules are considered then it would be quite clear that in case minor penalty of censure it is not at all necessary to hold any departmental inquiry before awarding punishment to a civil servant. Therefore, in the circumstances, the contentions raised by the petitioner that the punishment awarded to him is bad in law on account of not holding of departmental inquiry, could not be accepted.