1. This petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 236 of 1997 dated 08.07.2000 whereby, the appeal has been dismissed and the orders imposing punishment dated 20.12.1996 and 05.05.1997 were confirmed.
2. The facts in brief are that while the petitioner was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri in the respondent- Panchayat, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 02.02.1990 alleging certain irregularities. enquiry was conducted and in the said proceedings, some of the charges were proved. Thereafter, show cause Notice dated 26.11.1991 was issued to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service to which the petitioner submitted his reply vide reply dated 10.12.1991. However, vide order dated 17.11.1993, respondent no.1 imposed the penalty of placing the petitioner in the minimum pay-scale for five years with future effect. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 22/26.04.1994.
3. The said two orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Appeal No.283/1994. The Tribunal remanded the matter to respondent no.1 for de-novo departmental enquiry, vide judgment dated 16.03.1995. Pursuant to the order of remand, respondent no.1 again imposed the same penalty as was earlier imposed vide order dated 17.11.1993, by order dated 20.12.1996. Against the said order, appeal was preferred before respondent no.2, which was dismissed, vide order dated 05.05.1997.
4. The petitioner challenged the said orders before the Tribunal in Appeal No.236/1997, which came to be dismissed, vide judgment dated 08.07.2000. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Mr. A.S. Supehia learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not able to defend himself properly in the enquiry proceedings since he was not supplied with the materials relied upon by the disciplinary authority. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 wherein, it has been held that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, then its copy must be supplied in advance to charge-sheeted employee, so that he may have chance to rebut that material, otherwise it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Ms. Sejal Mandavia learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision relied upon by learned counsel Mr. Supehia would not apply to the present case since at the relevant time such principle did not held the field.
8. However, I do not agree with the submission advanced by learned counsel Ms. Mandavia since the decision relied upon by Mr. Supehia is binding on this Court. Considering the facts of the case and the decision rendered in S.K. Kapoor's case (supra), the respondents are required to supply all the material / documents to the petitioner, which they want to rely upon in the departmental enquiry proceedings. In view of the above, the entire enquiry proceedings and the consequential orders of punishment deserve to be quashed and set aside.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 236 of 1997 dated 08.07.2000 as also the orders passed by the respondents dated 20.12.1996 and 05.05.1997 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent-Panchayat for consideration afresh. The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner but, before doing so, they shall supply all material / documents to the petitioner, which they want to rely upon in the departmental proceedings. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*