A.D.VYAS Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court against the departmental inquiry and the ultimate order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the respondent authority of imposing major punishment of dismissal (discharge) of the petitioner from the service of the respondent authority.

(2.) Petitioner had joined the services of the respondent authority as an Accountant with the Bar Council in the year 1975 and thereafter the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary of the Bar Council in the year 1985. On 24.7.2005, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice (charge-sheet) for the alleged misconduct. Petitioner responded to the said charge-sheet and requested the respondent authority to keep the same in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal trial. Inquiry committee was appointed by the respondent authority on 16.7.2005 to conduct departmental inquiry against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct. The inquiry committee submitted its report on 8.1.2009, whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner were partly proved. After inquiry report, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 16.1.2009. This show cause notice was once again responded by the petitioner, whereby complete set of the report of inquiry officer was demanded. Based upon the report of the inquiry officer, respondent authority issued the impugned order dated 28.1.2009 imposing punishment of dismissal (discharge) of the petitioner from service.

(3.) Petitioner has challenged the above referred punishment order dated 28.1.2009 and the inquiry proceedings on various grounds. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on merits no case is made out against the petitioner to impose any punishment. It is further contended that the inquiry committee as well as the disciplinary authority had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner with predetermination and that the departmental inquiry in question was nothing but an eye-wash. It is further contended that, the inquiry committee has shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner, which is against the settled position of law. It is contended that it is a case of no evidence and therefore the reasonings of the inquiry committee are perverse. It is further contended that, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice at more than one counts, there was a biased and mala-fide approach on the part of the private Respondent No. 2 and 3, who were bent upon to harass the petitioner and see to it that the petitioner is removed from service anyhow. It is also contended that, in absence of the Rules, continuance of departmental inquiry after the retirement of the petitioner from service is without authority of law and that the disciplinary authority as well as the inquiry authority has not conducted the departmental inquiry in accordance with the established procedure for conducting departmental inquiry as per the settled position of law.