V S GAJUL Vs. HONOURABLE DISTRICT JUDGE SOLAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPSET by the order dated 29-1-1992 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and rejection of his administrative appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner who was working as junior clerk in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol was served with the charge-sheet on 16-2-1991. The charges against the petitioner, in substance, were:

(3.) MR. Sanjay Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, principally raised two contentions before us. His first contention was that in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in (Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan) A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 471, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to furnish the Inquiry Report to the petitioner. Having not done that, the Rules of natural justice were violated and the petitioner cannot be said to have been afforded adequate opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that denial of copy of Inquiry Report before dismissal order has caused tremendous prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. In support of this contention, Mr. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd Ramzan Khan, A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 471, and Five Judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in (Managing Director, E. C. I. L. Hyderabad, etc. etc. v. B. Karunkakar, etc. etc.) A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 1074. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that even if the charges levelled against the petitioner are held to be proved as has been found by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority, the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate. According to Mr. Kshirsagar, for the charges proved; (a) that for the period of 18 days the petitioner failed to submit daily diary to the Presiding Officer; (b) that the petitioner was late for about 7 days in a span of two years and (c) that the petitioner was hostile to co-workers some times, the punishment of dismissal cannot be justified. Highlighting the principle of proportionality, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Union of India and another v. G. Ginayutham (Dead) by L. Rs.) A. I. R. 1997 S. C. 3387 and (On Kumar and others v. Union of India) A. I. R. 2000 S. C. 3689. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the aforesaid infirmities the petitioner is not averse if the disciplinary proceedings are restored against the petitioner and matter is reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with law from the stage the copy of Inquiry Report was forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner.