K V BHUNDIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a City Survey, Superintendent of the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat, filed this writ petition before this court and challenge has been made therein to the order dated 30th November, 1983 under which he was ordered to be removed from the Government service on an alleged misconduct after holding a departmental inquiry.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 28th April, 1980 containing four charges, First charge was tp the effect that the petitioner is a married man and without giving divorce to his wife the petitioner is keeping illicit relations with one lady, namely Naliniben and out of that relation a daughter was born to the said lady. This conduct of the petitioner is a conduct unbecoming of the Government servant being against the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The second charge was that the petitioner has not informed the Government within reasonable time regarding the proceedings instituted by his wife against him under Sec. 125 (3) of CrPC. This conduct was said to be against the provisions of rule 18 of Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The third charge was to the effect that the wife of the petitioner had obtained an order for maintenance and the petitioner has not paid the said amount and as such, he was a debtor and that fact has also not been informed by him which is against the provisions of Rule 17(1) of the Rules aforesaid. The fourth charge was that though the respondent No. 2 has directed the petitioner to produce the copy of the judgment and order of the court, passed in the proceedings initiated by his wife under Sec. 125 (3) CrPC he has not produced the same before the said authority. An inquiry has been conducted in this case by the Special Officer for Departmental Inquiry Officer (Gazetted Officer), Ahmedabad. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 22-12-1981 to the Government. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer the charges No. 1 and 2 were found proved against the petitioner whereas in respect of charge No. 3 the petitioner was exonerated. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice alongwith the inquiry report to show cause why he should not be removed from the services for the proved misconduct. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner has also been given an opportunity of personal hearing. Under the order, impugned in this Special Civil Application dated 30th November, 1983, the Government has ordered for removal of the petitioner from services. Hence this Special Civil Application.

(3.) None of the respondents have filed reply to this Special Civil Application. The contents of the Special Civil Application therefore stands uncontroverted.