Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11302/2000 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11302 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KANTABEN
R. PANDYA WD/O DECD. R.N. PANDYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
The
petitioner challenges the order dated 7.9.2000 (Annexure-A) holding
him guilty of three charges in departmental proceedings and
punishment of stoppage of three increments without future effect
imposed by the Deputy Secretary,
Revenue Department.
2. The
facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as a
District Inspector of Land Records, Palanpur in the year 1995 when he
relieved one Mr SS Patel working under him pursuant to an order
passed by the Superintendent of Land Records (Annexure-B) dated
14.5.1995 despite the fact that the petitioner was aware that Mr SS
Patel was assigned with election duty on the day on which he was
relieved. Apart from this charge, two other charges were levelled
against him, namely, that the petitioner supported his superior
officer who had passed the transfer order and, on the other hand,
made an application to the State Election Commission where he
suppressed the fact of implementation of order by himself and the
third charge was of having made serious allegations of corruption in
transfer orders.
3. All
the three charges were held to have been proved and after hearing the
petitioner punishment of stoppage of two increments without future
effect came to be imposed. The petitioner has not challenged the
inquiry proceedings on account of any procedural lapse. The
explanation which is tendered by the petitioner is that while
relieving Mr SS Patel there was no ill-intention on the part of the
petitioner and that he was only implementing the order of his
superior. Even if it is accepted, it only explains his action so far
as the first charge is concerned. So
far as the second and third charges are concerned, no specific
explanation or defence is put forward on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Learned
advocate Ms Dave for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
made a scape-goat. He had no intention to flout the Code of Conduct.
The petitioner acted in good faith to implement the order of the
superior, which action he was forced to do under pressure of Mr SS
Patel. Of course, he has not been able to satisfy the inquiry
authority on this aspect.
5. This
Court also does not find much substance in it. The petitioner’s
subsequent conduct for which two separate charges have been framed
would go to show that he was aware about the consequence of his
action. It is not possible to accept that the direction of the
Election Commission and breach of direction of the Election
Commission were without the knowledge of the petitioner and,
probably, he acted in contravention of that knowledge. Under the
circumstances, the finding of guilt is not possible to be dislodged
in any manner.
6. That
leaves behind only question of quantum of punishment. In the opinion
of this Court, for examining the question of quantum of punishment,
the scope of the petition is very limited as has been held in Praveen
Bhatia vs. Union of India, (2009) 4 SCC 225. For three different
misconducts, if two increments
are stopped without future effect, the punishment does not seem to be
disproportionately harsh.
7. The
petition, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged. No costs.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
zgs/-
Top