1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ of the similar nature as this Hon'ble Court deems fit quashing and setting aside (i) findings and orders recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the Deputy District Development Officer, Mehsana District Panchayat, Mehsana dated 09.10.2003 as per AnnexureB; (ii) the order dated 23.03.2004 passed by the District Development Officer, Mehsana District Panchayat, Mehsana as per AnnexureC; (iii) the judgment and order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.351/2004/547 as per AnnexureD and (iv) the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Review Application No.11/2008 as per AnnexureE and direct the Respondents to release all the three withheld annual increments of the petitioner without any future effect and be pleased to further direct the authorities below to pass suitable orders for the release of pension and other retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner as if no increment has been withhold;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned order dated 09.10.2003 passed by the Deputy District Development Officer, Mehsana District Panchayat, Mehsana imposing penalty of withholding of three annual increments with future effect be stayed from being further implemented by the respondents in so far as it relates to payment of monthly pension and other retirement benefits like gratuity, commutation value of pension etc. to the petitioner;
(D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just be granted in the interest of justice.”
2. At the outset, it may be stated that even though the petition is titled as a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, what is challenged by way of this petition as can be seen from the prayers prayed for in this petition is the order dated 9.10.2003 passed by respondent No.3 – Deputy District Development Officer, Mehsana, the order dated 23.7.2004 passed by respondent No.2 – District Development Officer and the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the Gujarat State Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.351 of 2004.
3. The facts leading to filing of this petition as can be carved out from the petition are that the petitioner was working as Talati cum Mantri in Mehsana District at Village Vadu, Taluka Visnagar. During his period of service as Talati at the said village, complaints came to be filed in respect of the mutation entries made in the revenue records of District Panchayat regarding holding the agricultural land by certain persons and divide it into individual names of the same joint holders in respect of the certain lands situated at Visnagar, Becharaji, etc. bearing survey Nos.34 and 32 of village account no.58 and entries related thereto and village account nos.411 101, 99 and 97 and other village accounts. On the basis of the said complaints, the concerned authority initiated inquiry against the present petitioner and Taluka Development Officer, Visnagar was appointed as the Presenting Officer vide order dated 12.11.2001 by Mehsana District Panchayat.
4. It further transpires from the record that on completion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer formed an opinion that the petitioner is guilty of imputation of charges levelled against him and it came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed a misconduct. The said inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy District Development Officer, Mehsana vide order dated 27.12.2002.
5. On consideration of the said report on its examination, the Deputy District Development Officer, Mehsana vide order dated 9.10.2003 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and passed an order of penalty of withholding of three annual increments with future effect.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the District Development Officer, Mehsana by way of an appeal as provided under Section 6(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1997. The said appellate authority, after considering the material before it, confirmed the said order passed by the Deputy District Development Officer, Mehsana vide order dated 23.7.2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal which came to be registered as Appeal No.351/2004/547. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.3.2007 confirmed both the orders i.e. the order in original passed by the Deputy District Development Officer as well as the order in appeal passed by the District Development Officer. It further transpires that thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing a Review Application No.11 of 2008. The said Review Application was also came to be dismissed in limine vide order dated 15.11.2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.11.2010, the present petition is filed.
7. Heard Mr. S.N. Divetia, learned advocate for Mr. Sunil M. Agrawal for the petitioner, Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
8. Mr. S.N. Divetia, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the orders impugned in the present petition and has submitted that there was no reason for the authorities below to take a view that the petitioner has committed any misconduct. It is submitted that as far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the punishment of withholding of three increments with future effect is harsh while considering the allegations levelled against the present petitioner. It is submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed misconduct, the penalty imposed is excessive and in fact the authorities should have imposed only minor punishment. It is submitted that the petitioner has unblemished record of 37 years. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders impugned in the present petition deserve to be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr.
H.S. Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that all the authorities below have considered the facts on record and in fact on the basis of the record, it has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Deputy District Development Officer vide order in original dated 9.10.2003 is absolutely legal and proper. Mr. Chauhan, on the contrary, submitted that the penalty of withholding of only three increments with future effect is a lenient view which is taken by the authorities considering the grave misconduct committed by the petitioner. Mr. Chauhan relying upon the factual aspects as narrated in the orders impugned and more particularly in the orders passed by the Tribunal submitted that the petitioner while working as Talati cum Mantri has made alterations in the revenue records and the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct as alleged and has in fact made certain alterations in the village record which does not befit the revenue officer of the level of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the authorities below have not committed any error and this Court be pleased to dismiss the present petition in limine.
10. Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and has canvassed that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even though the petition is styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusing the orders impugned in the present petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was working as Talati cum Mantri and as can be seen from the orders impugned and more particularly the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner has made certain alterations in the revenue records which amounts to serious misconduct and the authorities below have rightly considered and appreciated the facts and evidence on record before it and therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the authorities below have committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of the record.
12. Considering the orders impugned in the present petition, even the learned advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below which warrants interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned AGP is right in pointing out that even though the petition is styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, what has been challenged is the orders passed by the authorities below. Even while examining the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as recorded by this Court in its earlier order dated 4.10.2011 (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.), this Court finds no error which warrants interference in the concurrent findings of the authorities below while considering the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby rejected.
13. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has been paid all retiral benefits after his retirement on 28.2.2011. A communication dated 6.2.2012 stating those facts, whereby the petitioner has been paid pension, gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance, leave encashment, etc. addressed by the Deputy Development Officer, Mehsana to Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3, is taken on record.
14. In view of this, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby rejected. No costs.
15. Mr. Divetia, learned advocate for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file a representation for reduction in the penalty.
16. It would be open for the petitioner to file such a representation, if permissible under the law.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya