1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.08.1998 (Annexure K) whereby the remaining amount of gratuity of the petitioner was retained. Petitioner has prayed to pay the commuted pension amount of Rs. 2,48,156/- with 18% interest and to set aside the punishment order dated 31.07.1998.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner having worked with the respondent authority retired on 30.06.1992 as a Superintendent Engineer on reaching the age of superannuation. Just a day prior thereto on 29.06.1992 he was served with a chargesheet by respondent no. 1. The charges levelled against the petitioner are that while working as an Executive Engineer in the year 1987, the petitioner invited bids from the contractors with the permission of respondent for carrying out the work of Water Course under the World Bank Aided Project and in pursuance by the said advertisement four tenders were received. Out of four, three tenders were rejected and one tender of Mr. P.J Vyas was responsive and its rate was of 9.5% rate, it was also rejected by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that tender of 23.90% rate was to be accepted and if tender of 9.5% rate was accepted, the government could have paid 14.75% rate in excess. Therefore, there was no other alternative, but to call second time tenders. The petitioner, therefore, again invited tenders but he did not inform the Superintending Engineer about the same. This action on the part of the petitioner was the subject matter of disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner.
3. After conclusion of the enquiry, respondent no. 1 issued punishment order of deducting Rs. 100/-
per month for a period of 5 years from his pension. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mr. A.R. Pandya who was the successor of the petitioner and who was responsible for the lapses was appointed as a Presenting Officer in the departmental inquiry. Learned counsel contended that he should not have been appointed as a Presenting Officer of the inquiry which was initiated against the petitioner. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Departmental Inquiry Commissioner held that charges are partly proved to the extent that the petitioner has wrongly rejected the tenders and he should have obtained the sanction of the Superintending Engineer and the remaining charges were not proved.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that after considering the evidence on record a punishment order dated 31.07.1998 was passed by disciplinary authority i.e. respondent no. 1, whereby it was decided to cut Rs. 100/- per month from the pension of the petitioner for a period of 5 years. Learned counsel submitted that penalty imposed on the petitioner is on higher side looking to the conduct of the petitioner and the government did not suffer any financial loss because of the action of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Pranav Dave, learned Asst. Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondent and contended that looking to the financial loss which was suffered by the Government, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is just and proper.
6. So far as the first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding appointment of Presenting Officer Mr. A.R. Pandya is concerned, in my view, it is the prerogative and discretion of the Government. I can understand that appointment of Mr. A.R.Pandya, as a Presenting Officer of the petitioner's inquiry, would affect the case of the petitioner he being the officer incharge and was Superintending Engineer. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by the petitioner regarding the appointment of Mr. A.R. Pandya as a Presenting Officer is misconceived and same is rejected.
8. The other contention regarding clubbing of work is concerned, the petitioner's contention is that originally the total estimate of the invited tenders by the petitioner were of Rs.8,30,924/- whereas subsequently when the other tenders were invited and when it was clubbed its total estimate was of
ought not to have been accepted at a high rate.
9. In my view, the rejection of the tenders by the petitioner was without permission from the higher authority and, therefore, the Government had to reinvite tenders because of which State Government had to pay more amount. Therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authority is just and proper and no interference is called for and the petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(K.S. Jhaveri, J.) Amar