ABHESINH MADUBAI ROZ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.H.R. Lathigara for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent No.1 State and learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw for respondent No.2.

(2.) By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed to set aside the inquiry report dated 17th June, 2016. He further prayed to quash the subsequent order dated 30th July, 2018 whereby the penalty was imposed against the petitioner of deduction of Rs.2,500/- from the pension of the petitioner.

(3.) The basic facts are that petitioner was Taluka Development Officer at Kadana, District Panchmahal during the period from 22nd September, 2007 to 19th February, 2009. The construction work of Panghat was carried out at Village Dhingalwada and further construction of 240 toilets under the Nirmal Gram Vikas Scheme was also undertaken. It appears that some application in the form of complaint was received in respect of irregularities in the said construction work. In the said complaint dated 16.10.2008 it was stated that the Panghat was constructed in the Khet Talavadi instead of on the wall of the dam where it was supposed to be constructed. It was also alleged that only 113 toilets instead of 214 were constructed.