JADHAV INDAS PATEL Vs. A K TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Police Inspector then, was served with the show -cause notice dated 04.08.1991 on the charges that he had acquired certain properties, movable as well as immovable, for which, no intimation was given to the competent authority nor any prior approval was obtained. The petitioner submitted reply to the show -cause notice on 17.09.1991 and contended inter alia that the properties are acquired from his own family sources and the information was already available and the statements were recorded. It was further submitted that he was not specifically intimated about any rule or the government circular whereby, the intimation was to be given and, therefore, he prayed that the notice be withdrawn. The competent authority - Commissioner of Police, Surat ultimately, vide order dated 11.11.1991, found that there is lapse on the part of the petitioner to give intimation and it was not pertaining to moral turpitude and the same was a procedure of irregularity and, therefore, the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the said order before the higher authority. However, it appears that on 21.04.1992, the higher authority i.e. Director General of Police, Gujarat State issued notice for enhancement of the punishment proposing to impose penalty of withholding of one increment. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 16.06.1992 and contended inter alia that there was no knowledge of the circular for intimation and there is no intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner and he further contended that the properties are acquired from his own sources. The Director General of Police, thereafter vide order dated 10.09.1992, considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and found that ignorance of circular is no excuse and ultimately, found for imposition of the punishment of withholding of one increment without future effect. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.G.P. for the State.

(3.) IT appears from the record and the reply submitted by the petitioner that it is not the case of the petitioner that he had given intimation or application or prior approval, as was required in the rule. Therefore, non -intimation or non -obtaining of the prior approval by the petitioner for the alleged property which is described in the show -cause notice, even if one motorcycle, which was purchased in 1969, is excluded as per the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, such requirement of law was not in existence, since the rules are of 1971, it is a case where, admittedly, the intimation has not been given by the government employee, as required under the Rules for acquiring property, movable or immovable, governed by the said rules.