1. By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 19th January, 2002 passed by the respondent State, whereby major punishment of reduction in monthly pension of the petitioner, to the extent of Rs.500 per month, for a period of 30 months, was imposed. The said order is stated to have been passed after consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission.
2. Heard Mr. A.S. Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhavik Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, apart from other contentions which are raised in the petition, this is a case of no evidence and on that count alone, the impugned order needs to be set aside.
4.1 From record it transpires that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4.4.1995, for two charges. The first charge was held to be not proved and thus the same is not the subject matter of this petition. So far charge no. 2 is concerned, the same pertains to procedural irregularity in purchase of stationery, however along with the charge sheet, no evidence worth the name connecting the petitioner with the purchase of stationery was given to the petitioner.
4.2 After some correspondence, the petitioner submitted his reply on 1.9.2005, Annexure-B to this petition, taking a specific plea that the petitioner had not made any purchase of the stationery, leave aside committing any irregularity, even procedural. The disciplinary authority ought to have applied mind at that stage itself and the case against the petitioner ought to have been dropped from that stage, else it was incumbent upon the authority to record his satisfaction, by referring to the bills of the purchases which connected the petitioner with the allegation levelled against him. This was not done, and mechanically the case of the petitioner was assigned to the Inquiry Officer along with five other Officers, for joint inquiry. The inquiry in question continued against six officers, including the petitioner being one of the four Deputy Executive Engineers, alongwith one Executive Engineer Mr.Parekh and one Store Keeper. Before Inquiry Officer also, the petitioner reiterated his stand, which is reflected in the report, however Inquiry Officer recorded his satisfaction that, in case of Executive Engineer Mr.Parekh, discussion in this regard is made, he is held guilty and therefore no further discussion qua petitioner Mr.V.K.Shah is required and the petitioner is also held guilty.
4.3 The disciplinary authority, mechanically accepted such finding of the Inquiry Officer. When the copy of the inquiry report was given to the petitioner, the petitioner again reiterated his stand by his reply dated 17.12.1999 that he had not made any purchase. After this representation also, the authorities did not put on record that by which bill, the petitioner had made any purchase and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed. It is this order which is challenged, contending that this is the case of no evidence.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pandya, by referring to the affidavit in reply dated 3rd March 2003, contended that the petition involves disputed questions of fact and the same be dismissed by this Court. This Court, at this stage also, put specific question to the learned Assistant Government Pleader as to what is the stand of the Government with regard to specific and consistent plea taken by the petitioner that he had not made any purchase, learned AGP except referring to the contents of the affidavit in reply, does not have any more to add and reply is silent on this point. Further, in response to the affidavit in reply, the petitioner had filed affidavit in rejoinder on 10th March 2003, stating therein that if the Government has any document to link the petitioner with any purchase, let it come on record. Nothing has come on record and this has remained uncontroverted.
6. In above factual back ground, I find that the contention of the petitioner, that this is the case of no evidence is well founded. The stand of the petitioner from the beginning has been that he has not made any purchase whatsoever and therefore, there was no question of any procedural irregularity, as alleged. Even in absence of any such plea of the petitioner, it was for the respondent authority to point out the document on the basis of which the charge was levelled against the petitioner. The burden could not have been shifted on the petitioner to disproved it. Further, when the petitioner has taken a specific plea that he had not made any purchase, it was all the more required for the respondent authority to point out the bill, if any, which connect the petitioner with the alleged irregularity, which the authority has not done at any stage. Under this circumstances, the order impugned in this petition, which is already stayed by this Court vide order dated 28th July, 2003, can not be allowed to stand in the eyes of law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. I also find that, there is not only mechanical but absolute indifferent approach adopted by the disciplinary authority, while exercising quasi-judicial powers and therefore, cost is also required to be imposed. It also needs to be noted that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st August, 1997 and the effect of this departmental inquiry, that too in this factual background, would have been that the retirement dues of the petitioner would not have been finalized until the impugned order came to be passed on 19th January, 2002.
8. It also needs to be recorded that the impugned order is stated to have been passed after consultation with and on the advice of the Gujarat Public Service Commission. Basic factual aspects in this case, as discussed above, appears to have been ignored by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, which would require some observation, however Commission not being party, this aspect is left here.
9. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.
(a) Impugned punishment order dated 19th January, 2002 is quashed and set aside.
(b) Amount of reduction in pension, pursuant to the impugned order, until it came to be stayed by this court, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
(c) The respondent authority is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner, which shall be paid within a period of three months from today.
Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J) ak verma