HIRALAL K JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners employees of the District Panchayat of Baroda have filed these petitions challenging issuance of second charge-sheets against them and holding of fresh inquiry in pursuance of such charge-sheets by the District Development Officer of the District Panchayat of Baroda. Since common questions are involved in these petitions they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts leading to these petitions briefly stated are as follows: Petitioners of Special Civil Applications Nos. 3715 of 1985 and 3742 of 1985 were at the relevant time employed as Circle Inspectors while petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5022 of 1985 was employed as Clerk in the Waghodia Taluka of the Baroda District. Taluka Development Officer of Waghodia Taluka Panchayat granted permission for non-agricultural use of several parcels of land bearing different survey numbers and situated in different villages of Waghodia Taluka. It was alleged that the Taluka Development Officer had in collusion with the petitioners granted such permissions in violation of the guidelines and resolutions issued by the Government from time to time and the relevant Rules. It was alleged that petitioners of Special Civil Applications Nos. 3715 of 1985 and 3742 of 1985 who were Circle Inspectors and petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5022 of 1985 who was Clerk had misused their authority and committed several irregularities in preparing the cases of various applicants seeking permission for non-agricultural use of the land in their occupation and it was on the basis of the cases prepared by the said petitioners that the Taluka Development Officer granted permission for non-agricultural use of several parcels of laud as aforesaid. It was alleged that the Taluka Development Officer and the petitioners of the present petitions had colluded and it was as a result of such collusion that permission for non-agricultural use of the lands was granted in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government and the relevant Rules. It was therefore decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Taluka Development Officer and the petitioners. By an order dated 9/09/1981 the petitioners were suspended from service and on 3/03/1982 they were served with charge-sheets. The Taluka Development Officer was also suspended and served with charge-sheet. The petitioners submitted their replies to the charge sheets denying the allegations made against them. Post of Taluka Development Officer is a Class II Gazetted post and therefore so far as Taluka Development Officer was concerned the State Government was the Disciplinary authority. So far as he was concerned it was the Government which instituted disciplinary proceedings suspended him from service and served him charge-sheet. So far as petitioners were concerned they were Class III servants under the jurisdiction of the District Panchayat of Baroda and therefore disciplinary proceedings against them were instituted by the District Panchayat authorities who suspended them from services and served them with charge-sheets. Since as pointed out above the Taluka Development Officer who was Class II Gazetted Officer was involved the matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government it appears decided to hold a joint inquiry against the petitioners and the Taluka Development Officer as common questions were involved and it directed the Special Officer for Departmental inquiry for Gazetted Officers to hold joint inquiry against the petitioners and the Taluka Development Officer. The Inquiry Officer was of the view that it was not necessary to record any oral evidence and the inquiry against each of the delinquents could be decided on the basis of the documentary evidence. He therefore referred the matter back to the State Government with a request to it to direct the appropriate authority to take action against each of the delinquents. The State Government I am told disagreed with the view taken by the Inquiry Officer and again remitted the matter to the Inquiry Officer for holding inquiry against all the four delinquents namely the petitioners and the Taluka Development Officer.

(3.) In the meantime the petitioners except the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5022 of 1985 approached this Court by way of Special Civil Applications and challenged the orders suspending them from services. This Court by an order dated 12/01/1984 directed the State Government to complete the inquiry within three months. It was thereafter that the State Government remitted the matter back to the Inquiry Officer as stated above and directed him to hold joint inquiry against the petitioners and the Taluka Development Officer.