RAJENDRAKUMAR A. BAROT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashment of the order of compulsory retirement dated 18/11/2008 imposed upon by the 1st respondent as punishment in pursuance to the departmental inquiry held against him levelling principally the charge that he suppressed certain material facts in order to take the advantage of the government policy whereunder certain plots in the City of Gandhinagar were to be allotted to the government servants on satisfaction of specified criteria. The petitioner had taken the said order of punishment unsuccessfully before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, who dismissed the proceedings by order dated 28/03/2007.

(2.) Three charges were levelled against the petitioner being (01) he was not transferable to Gandhinagar and that his original establishment was the office of the Collector, Bharuch; false affidavit and certificate was produced by him in order to obtain the plot at Gandhinagar at concessional rate; though not eligible (02) GR dated 29/06/1988 and 05/11/1988 rendered those serving at Gandhinagar eligible to apply for the plot at Gandhinagar at concessional rate; he misguided the department and misused his office by making an application for the plot stating that his original establishment was Gandhinagar Forest and Environment Department and (03) in order to obtain the plot at Gandhinagar, the delinquent, produced the affidavit dated 05/12/1988 and the certificate issued by the Forest Conservator, Gandhinagar Circle dated 05/12/1988 wherein he stated that his establishment was the Forest and Environment Department, Sachivalaya and his current posting was in the office of the District Forest Conservator, Gandhinagar Circle; which was wrong since at that point of time his original establishment was in the office of the Collector, Bharuch; he thus misguided the office where he was serving; suppressed the fact and obtained the plot at concessional rate on the basis of false certificate. 2. 1 The petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry with the above charges and in the inquiry report, he was exonerated of charges No.1 and 2 mentioned above. So far as the charge No.3 is concerned, he was attributed with the suppression of the fact that his original establishment was the Collector Office, Bharuch and that after suppressing the said fact, he obtained the certificate from the office of the Conservator of Forest stating that his principal establishment was Forest and Environment Department, Gandhinagar. 2. 2 Pertinently, the Inquiry Officer did find on record of the case the representation allegedly made by the petitioner to obtain the said certificate from the officer concerned; in absence thereof, the inquiry officer found its author; namely Deputy Conservator of Forest responsible for its issue. It is however observed in the inquiry report that the petitioner is also responsible for obtaining the false certificate.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement suffers from various legal infirmities. It is contended that whereas the inquiry officer absolved the petitioner of the first two charges, the disciplinary authority after accepting the inquiry report proceeded as if all the charges against the petitioner were proved during enquiry. It is submitted that disciplinary authority, without recording the reasons for its disagreement with findings rendered in the inquiry report in relation to 1st two charges; and unmindful of the petitioner's exoneration qua said two charges, erroneously inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner on the false assumption that all the charges were established. It was contended that therefore impugned order is only perverse but also suffers from non-application of mind as also it is in violation of principles of natural justice in absence of opportunity to the petitioner to plead his case in relation to 1st two charges. 3. 1 It was argued that the Conservator of Forest had issued the certificate which was produced before the authority concerned for the purpose of applying for the plot at concessional rate under the policy of the State Government. It was argued that nothing was brought on record to show as to whether the petitioner had influenced the contents of the certificate and that in absence of clear provision in the GR dated 29/06/1988 as to the categories of employees entitled to apply for plot at concessional rate, the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that he was so entitled and the application was made bonafide. 3. 2 Learned Counsel in support of the said contention relied upon clause 2.3(d) of the said GR. It is submitted that the employees completing five years of service were entitled to the plots at concessional rate. 3. 3 It is also contended that Rule 9(13) and 9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules) were complied with; in absence of oral evidence as required by Rule 9(3). 3. 4 It was argued that the petitioner did examine himself and therefore he was required to be confronted with the incriminating circumstances against him under Rule 9(17); which was done and thus mandatory provision was violated. 3. 5 It is submitted that the tribunal also committed an error in appreciating the above legal aspect and therefore the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.