1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief and directions:
"27(B). Be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and orders dated 21.07.2010 and 08.03.2010 passed in Review Application No.2/2010 and Appeal No.35/2008 respectively (Annexure A collectively) passed by Hon'ble Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, after holding the same as contrary to law and evidence on record and be pleased to quash and set aside the punishment order dated 14.10.2003 passed by respondent No.2 and as confirmed by respondent No.1 on 7.11.07 (Annexure A collectively) after holding the same as arbitrary and illegal and further be pleased to declare the departmental inquiry proceedings as null and void in the interest of justice."
3. The facts involved in present petition are that at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Talati-cum-Mantri. It appears that in the month of September 1998 serious flood situation had occurred in Surat District and the flood in Tapi river caused heavy damages to persons and properties in several villages of district Surat. On account of such natural calamity, the Government provided aid to the victims of the flood situation. The Taluka Development Officer, Choryasi requisitioned the services of present petitioner who, at the relevant time, was working as Talati in Amroli village. His services were requested for, for the purpose of distribution of cheques since Talati of Ganeshpura village was unable to undertake and complete the said job single handedly. In all, 57 cheques were given to the petitioner for distribution to the affected persons. The cheques were to be served personally and the petitioner was supposed to obtain signatures/thumb impressions of the victims, on the receipt against the payment by cheque. It is alleged that the petitioner did not follow the procedure and allegedly handed over 56 cheques to one Mafabhai Rabari who was President of Ramnagar Society of village Ganeshpura for distribution to the concerned persons. It appears that the petitioner obtained receipt from said Mafabhai Rabari. One cheque which was not handed over to Mafabhai Rabari was deposited back in the office. It appears that subsequently the said Mafabhai Rabari had encashed the cheques with the help of a broker and the amounts were not, allegedly, paid to the victims. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,58,590/- came to be misappropriated. In light of such facts, a charge-sheet dated 14.08.2000 was issued against the petitioner. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore departmental proceedings were initiated. The Inquiry Officer conducted and completed the departmental inquiry and submitted his report. On the basis of the evidence on record the Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. In view of such report, the competent authority issued another show-cause notice informing the petitioner about the proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18.04.2002 in response to the said show-cause notice. After considering entire material on record including the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 14.10.2003 imposing penalty of stoppage/withholding three increments with future effect.
4. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said order and preferred an appeal before the District Development Officer. The District Development Officer rejected the appeal on the ground that it was time barred.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred proceedings before the service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, after considering the appeal directed the respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy District Development Officer to decide the departmental appeal.
6. In view of the said direction, the respondent No.2 heard the petitioner and vide order dated 07.11.2007 rejected the petitioner's request.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred another Appeal before the learned Tribunal which came to be registered as Appeal No.35 of 2008.
8. After hearing the petitioner and considering the record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appeal did not deserve to be accepted and the penalty order was justified and commensurate to the charges levelled against the petitioner which was rightly held proved by the Inquiry Officer.
9. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 8th March 2010, rejected the appeal. While rejecting the appeal, the learned Tribunal made below mentioned observations:
"8. The short question to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the appellant acted with malafide motive or not, and whether the punishment is justified. I have gone through the records and papers of departmental proceeding submitted by the respondent. The departmental inquiry has been held as per the procedure laid down and the appellant has no grievance against the same. His only grievance is that the respondents have not considered his bonafide intention before issuing the punishment orders. The mindset of a person is judged by his actions. There is a procedure laid down for distribution of cheques which has been violated by the appellant. This is provided in the inquiry and also is admitted by the appellant. The appellant says it was his initiative that caused the recovery. But the record says otherwise. The report of Deputy D.D.O. of November 1999 mentions that the misappropriated money could be recovered because of the prompt action of the department. The whole thing looks like a conspiracy where the appellant is one of the conspirators. This allegation is not tried in the departmental inquiry, but there is nothing on record that establishes the claim of the appellant that it was he who saved the money. The Talati-cum-Mantri of Ganeshpura village had distributed 1254 cheques and there was no complaint about that. It is not understood when the Talati Shri Ranchodbhai Nai could find so many people in the village, the appellant found it difficult to trace only 57 people. The money of the cheque was siphoned off by the recipient and also restored by him to the Government when pressure mounted. All these facts do not support the claims of the appellant. In view of the above discussions, I am of opinion that the charges against the appellant are proved and the quantum of punishment is justified. Hence, the following order is passed:"
10. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred review application before the learned Tribunal. The said review application was registered as Review Application No.2 of 2010. After hearing the petitioner at length, the learned Tribunal did not find any merits in the said review application and that therefore vide order dated 21st July 2010 the learned Tribunal rejected the said review application as well.
11. Now, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 21.07.2010 passed in Review Application No.2 of 2010 as well as the order dated 8th March 2010 passed in Appeal No.35 of 2008 and has also challenged the orders dated 7/10.11.2007 and 14.10.2003. All the above mentioned orders are against the petitioner herein.
12. In the order dated 8th March 2010 the learned Tribunal addressed the issue as to whether the appellant acted with malafide motive or not and whether the punishment is justified or not.
13. It is pertinent to note that so far as the proceedings of the departmental inquiry are concerned the petitioner has not raised any grievance against the said proceedings.
14. His only grievance was to the effect that the departmental authority did not consider his bonafide intention while handing over the cheques to one Shri Mafabhai Rabari.
15. On this count, the learned Tribunal has observed that the mindset of a person is judged by his actions. The learned Tribunal took into consideration that specific procedure was prescribed and the petitioner was informed about the procedure. The said procedure was required to be followed diligently and scrupulously.
16. However, the petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure.
17. It is pertinent that during the inquiry proceedings the petitioner admitted that he had not followed the procedure scrupulously.
18. The petitioner took shelter under the explanation that subsequently on account of his efforts said Mafabhai Rabari had deposited/repaid the amount in question and recovery of the amount was thereby completed.
19. Merely because the amount came to be repaid by said Mafabhai Rabari the violations of instructions caused by the petitioner are not wiped out.
20. The learned Tribunal has recorded its specific finding after examining the entire record and the submissions of the petitioner that the entire incident appeared like conspiracy between the appellant and said Shri Mafabhai Rabari and other persons who were involved.
21. The said conclusion is finding of fact reached on appreciation of evidence and petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that it is perverse. Any evidence from record is also not shown which could convince the Court to take a different vide, and to hold that the conclusion could never have been reached in light of evidence on record.
22. When the learned Tribunal has recorded findings of fact and before that the respondent No.2 has also not found merits in the appeal proceedings taken out by the appellant - petitioner against the penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not enter into the process of re-appreciation of evidence and when the conclusions reached by the learned Tribunal are based on the material on record and when the disciplinary authority as well as the respondent No.2 have also reached the same conclusion, there is no reason or justification for this Court to interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the respondent No.2 and subsequently confirmed by the learned Tribunal as well.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any substantial ground against the decision by the learned Tribunal. Any error, much less of law or jurisdiction, in the order of the learned Tribunal is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any material from record which would convince this Court that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to weightage of evidence on record or are arbitrary or perverse.
24. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top