N M CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was called out for hearing in the first round then in the second round and lastly in the third round but none is present for the petitioner. Though two of the Additional Government Advocates are present in the Court but when they were called upon to make their submissions they have given out that the brief has not been given to them nor they have any instructions in the matter and further nobody is present on behalf of the respondents to assist them and they cannot appear in the matter. In this case reply to the special civil application has been filed but nobody is here to make submissions on behalf of the respondents. I have perused the special civil application.

(2.) The petitioner, who was holding the post of Executive Engineer, was ordered to be compulsorily retired from the Government services under the order dated 29th June, 1987 in exercise of powers as conferred under the Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. This order has been impugned by the petitioner in this special civil application.

(3.) From the reply to the special civil application I find that there were adverse remarks in the Annual Appraisal Performance Report of the petitioner for the years 1982-83 and 1984-85. Even during the period 1985-86 his work was not found upto the mark. He was found to be disobedient and not attentive in discharging his duties. He was not following the Accounts Rules and his knowledge of Accounts Rules was found to be inadequate. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 29th June, 1987. The departmental inquiries were also pending against the petitioner in respect of the charges, namely, (a) negligence and carelessness on the part of the petitioner which resulted in over payment of Rs.18,768-34ps., (b) careless and negligence in performance of his duties which resulted in concrete lining work on the canal bank to be of inferior quality, (c) by not inviting public tender for purchase of pressure relief valves, which resulted in excess payment of approximately Rs.7.37 lacs, (d) he was chargesheeted for not maintaining the quality and for non-use of cement as per certain specification prescribed in the P.W.D. Manual, and (e) he is also charged for purchasing excess stationery and payment of excess amount in purchase of calculators. The respondents have given out details of adverse service record of the petitioner in the reply affidavit and those have not been specifically denied by the petitioner.