R M JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the order of the Government dated 6-11-1985 ordering reduction of Rs. 100.00 per month with permanent effect from his pension. This order has been passed after holding departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 15-2-1982. The petitioner retired on 28th February, 1982. The departmental inquiry initiated under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 was converted into one under Rule 189-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet. Special Officer for departmental inquiry was appointed for inquiry. On 28th July 1982, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the State Government and the Inquiry Officer found that the Government has not suffered any loss as no payment was made to the agriculturists, but recorded finding of guilt of negligence of the petitioner. On 5-9-1983, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why 50% of his pension and gratuity should not be withheld/reduced. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 17-9-1983. The order of penalty as aforesaid came to be passed on 6-11-1985. Hence this writ petition. against the order of reduction in pension.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. V. Hathi has made four contentions in this case. It is first contended that the provision of Rule 189-A is not attracted and could not have been made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as no financial loss was suffered by the Government and no misconduct was held proved. It is next contended that even if the Court proceeds on the assumption that Rule 189 applies and that the inquiry was competent under the said Rule, the facts show only lapse or mistakes not amounting to any misconduct as contemplated by Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. It is next submitted that in any case, there is no evidence against the petitioner and the finding of guilt which has been recorded is perverse and unreasonable. Lastly, it is argued that in any case, penalty imposed is excessive and harsh and it is disproportionate to the guilt of negligence proved against the petitioner.

(3.) Miss Sejal Mandavia, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Government.