N B ANJARA Vs. DIRECTOR AYURVED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. M.B. Anjara, Senior Clerk of the Ayurved Department was visited with an order of punishment by order dated 18.11.1982 made by Director of Ayurved under which he was reverted to the post of Junior clerk for a period of three years with a stipulation that those who are promoted during that period would be senior to him and his seniority as senior clerk would be determined on the basis of the date of repromotion on the expiry of the period of punishment. Against the order dated 18.11.1982 an appeal was filed before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No. 592 of 1982. The Tribunal vide its order dated 1.8.1984 found that the cumulative effect of the misconduct on the part of the appellant that he denied to attend to old work; that despite the orders of superiors he misbehaved with his superiors and his attitude was high handed and arrogant and that he worked at sixes and seven can be held to be proved beyond doubt and he must face the consequences therefor. However, as to the quantum of punishment it was of the opinion that there were mitigating factors which ought to have been taken into consideration not only before initiating the enquiry against the appellant but also at the stage of detemining the final penalty and by taking into consideration all circumstances, set aside the penalty of reduction in rank from the cadre of Senior Clerk to Junior Clerk and substituted it with the penalty of withholding two increments due to the petitioner thereafter in the scale of Senior Clerk and further that the appellant should not be promoted for two years to the higher post even it due, according to this seniority as a Senior Clerk. The period of suspension should be treated as such.

(2.) One fact which may also be noted that the Departmental enquiry culminated on 18.11.1982 when final order of penalty was passed by reducing the petitioner lower in rank from Senior Clerk to Junior Clerk. The order dated 18.11.1982 was stayed in appeal which continued to remain in operation during the pendency of appeal.

(3.) Having considered the rival contentions and totality of circumstances, so far as the finding of misconduct of petitioner is concerned, it being based on appreciation of evidence about which no unfairness can be found cannot be interfered with in a petition under Art. 226 for issuing a writ of certiorari as it suffers neither from error apparent on the face of record nor it suffers from want of jurisdiction. So also substitution of the penalty of reduction in rank with penalty of withholding of two grade increments prospectively and withholding promotion for two years prospectively also cannot be interfered with as the punishment cannot be said to be in any manner grossly disproportionate to misconduct proved so as to warrant interference.