MANSUKHBHAI HIRABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.06.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 as well as order dated 03.09.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 respectively.

(2.) The premise on which the present petition is brought before the Court is that the petitioner was appointed as a Sub?Overseer in respondent no. 2 Nagarpalika with effect from 25.08.1995 and was doing his technical work. Additionally, he was also given charge of Surveyor in Surveyor Branch, as an Engineer in Construction Branch, Engineer in Water Works Department of respondent no. 2. On account of these additional charges, the work of the petitioner was overburdened since he was expected to discharge work of four branches of Nagarpalika. Moreover, the petitioner was also assigned the work for creating Jetpur Board and this has been agitated by the petitioner with a specific request on number of occasions that the petitioner may not be able to cope up with these additional charges on account of his ill health and on account of excess work, time and again assigned. The request for reduction of some work load was not been adhere to by the respondent authority instead an allegation was made against the petitioner about embezzlement of funds and for that a show cause notice was served on 06.08.2007 which came to be replied on 08.08.2007. Having found not satisfactory explanation, a final notice was issued on 21.08.2007 by respondent no. 2 which was also additionally replied according to the petitioner on 22.08.2007. However, ultimately, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 29.08.2007 and without conducting any departmental inquiry according to the petitioner an order of dismissal came to be passed on 03.09.2007. It has been the case of the petitioner that neither any opportunity of hearing is given nor any detailed inquiry was conducted nor even any witnesses have been examined and by brief summary process, an order of dismissal came to be passed.

(3.) The petition came to be entertained by this Court wherein on 11.08.2011 after hearing, the Court admitted the matter which has then upon completion of the pleadings came up for consideration finally before this Court.