MARUTI L SAWANT Vs. COLLECTOR OF NORTH GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges in this petition the orders evidenced by Annexures P-6 and P-8. By these orders, the petitioner was dismissed from the service. Short facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was charge-sheeted for misconduct by the first respondent. The charge framed against him reads in Article I, as follows :

(2.) ON the basis of this charge and the allegations, an inquiry has been conducted. On conclusion of the inquiry, the first respondent imposed a penalty of dismissal against the petitioner by order dated 31-7-1987, evidenced as annexure P-6. An appeal had been filed by the petitioner before the Chief Secretary to the government and the appeal was also dismissed by order evidenced by Exhibit P-8 dated 19-8-1988.

(3.) WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, raised two important points in this case. He submits that no offence as charged by the respondents, has been disclosed in the charge-sheet and, therefore, it has to be held that no offence has been established against the petitioner. He also argued that the punishment imposed is quite unwarranted and disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner. Though other contentions have been raised by the petitioner, we do not think that those contentions have to be addressed by us for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition. In his endeavour to establish that no offence has been disclosed in the charge and the petitioner had only acted as permitted by the rule, Mr. Kakodkar has drawn our attention to the relevant rules of the Land revenue Code. Rule 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu land Revenue (Record of Rights and Register of cultivators) Rules, 1969, reads as follows :