STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. K B TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one case where the Government should not have filed the petition in the first place. I find that the State Civil Service Tribunal in the impugned order has, if at all, erred in favour of the Government by simply remanding the inquiry and thereby permitting further inquiry against the employee. It was a fit case where the order of the disciplinary authority should have been finally and conclusively quashed. Reasons for my such strong opinion would be available in the following paragraphs of the order.

(2.) THE respondent was employed in the Government as a surveyor in the office of DILR, Bhavnagar. On the ground that while in service, he carried out survey of private land and collected remuneration of Rs. 700 and thereby committed misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued against him in the year 1992. Upon completion of the oral inquiry, inquiry officer submitted his report dated 28. 7. 94. He held that charges were proved. Curiously, though no evidence was led, no witnesses examined, no document to prove the charge against the delinquent proved, inquiry officer on legally untenable ground held the delinquent guilty of the charges. One reason assigned was that admittedly, he had other inquiry initiated against him and though in such inquiry, he was exonerated, the inquiry officer opined that there must be some worth in the allegations. He further observed that delinquent failed to produce any evidence of bias. Regarding the departmental witness not deposing before the officer, he opined that in which case it was open for the delinquent to examine them as defence witness. On such grossly impermissible grounds, purely on surmises and conjectures, the inquiry officer concluded that charges were proved, though there was no evidence at all to permit such a conclusion.

(3.) DELINQUENT represented against the inquiry officer's report and opposed the conclusion. The Disciplinary Authority however, instead of seeing through the fallacy of the inquiry officer erred in mechanically accepting the findings and imposed an extreme penalty of removal from service. Departmental appeal of the delinquent also met with an unfortunate fate of dismissal upon which, employee approached the State Civil Services Tribunal which by impugned judgement by giving cogent reasons found that no punishment could have been imposed on the basis of evidence on record. While setting aside the said penalty, the tribunal remanded proceedings for further inquiry in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. It is this order which the Government for some strange reasons has challenged before this Court.