1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[A] Admit and allow the petition with costs and consequential relief.
[B] Set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A.
[C] Grant any other relief as may be just and equitable in the premises."
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was working in the State Judiciary as Nazir at Taluka Sankheda, District Vadodara. On the allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated certain amount, inquiry was ordered to be initiated against him. At the end of inquiry, the competent authority imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of two years with future effect by order dated 30.11.1994. However, the said order was taken in suo motu review by this Court. In the said proceedings the competent authority concluded that earlier penalty imposed against the delinquent was less looking to the gravity of misconduct and accordingly imposed punishment of dismissal from the service. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2006 by which the petitioner was dismissed from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that somewhere during June, 1991 the petitioner had allegedly misappropriated the government money to the tune of Rs.207/-. On that basis departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and after conclusion of the said inquiry, the competent authority imposed punishment of penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. Here, it may be noted that the said alleged misappropriation was committed during June, 1991. In the past also, the petitioner was found to be involved in similar kind of offence. In spite of the said allegation, the petitioner though it appropriate to deposit the said amount which he had misappropriated, but had not deposited the same for almost three years. He had deposited the said amount in January, 1994 only after he was served with the charge-sheet in respect of the departmental inquiry. In the suo-motu proceedings, the competent authority of this Court came to the conclusion that the misconduct committed by the petitioner was serious in nature, more particularly, when he was found to be involved in similar misconduct in the past also and accordingly passed the order to dismiss the petitioner from the service. Considering the facts of the case and the history of the petitioner, I am of the view that the order passed by the competent authority is just, legal and I do not find any reasons to disturb the same.
4. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top