JAYANTBHAI BHOLABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1971 and also under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules 2002 for the prayer as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued declaring the impugned order dated 6.9.2013 passed by the Respondent as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also further prayed that the Respondent may be permitted to restore the petitioner to the original stage in the time scale and also for stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 6.9.2013 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows;

(2.) The Petitioner was served with the chrage sheet dated 18.11.2002 in respect of the discrepancies in construction work of Shethi Branch Canal regarding the Narmada Project Canal Sub-Division at Dakore. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working at Narmada project Canal Sub-Division at Dakore. Due to the release of the water in Narmada Yojna Canal which was overflowed and a split had taken place in Shethi Branch Canal which led to an inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 1.11.2006 and was served with the charge sheet. The findings were given by the Inquiry Officer that out of the three charges levelled against the petitioner, all the three charges are not proved. However, the same has not been approved of by the government and by rejecting the findings of the Inquiry officer under Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1971, as per the findings of the disciplinary authority, out of the charges levelled against the petitioner, Charge No.1 and 2 have been believed to be proved and Charge No.3 has been believed as partly proved culminating in the penalty of reduction by seven stages in the time scale pay till 30.9.2006 that is the date of retirement of the petitioner on superannuation with future effect as per Rule 6(4) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1971 read with Rule 26 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules 2002. It has been contended that the order imposing such penalty is bad in law contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India on the grounds stated in the petition.

(3.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Shalin N. Mehta appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt for the Petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Asmita patel for the Respondent State.