Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3062/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3062 of 2011
=========================================================
MANUBHAI
S KHANT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NACHIKET D MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR GUNVANT R
THAKAR for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 09/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Kendra Sanchalak with
respondent no.2 – Rural Labour Welfare Board, Manchod, Taluka
Santrampur, District Panchmahal, whose service came to be terminated
by order dated 09.03.2009 and 26.08.2010 by respondent authority
after issuing a show cause notice and seeking an explanation for
certain alleged irregularities in the matter of granting of financial
assistance to beneficiaries under Labour Security Scheme. By order
dated 01.03.2001, the petitioner was appointed as Kendra Sanchalak to
render honorary service on terms and conditions of the appointment
order which revealed that the said honorary service was not of
permanent nature and being voluntary could be terminated by either of
the parties.
2. It
is the case of the respondent-Board that the petitioner, who was duty
bound to disburse the amount of compensation to the claimant under
Labour Welfare Scheme, had, in fact, misappropriated an amount of
Rs.1 lakh by taking active participation by disbursing the said
amount to the claimant, who was not entitled to receive such amount.
Not only that, the petitioner participated in getting the bank
account opened and depositing the cheque and therefore, after issuing
show cause notice and seeking reply from the petitioner, the service
came to be terminated and no provision of any rule and regulation
framed by the Board mandate the authority for initiating any
departmental inquiry for the alleged charge of misappropriation in a
case of a person who is appointed to render honorary service.
3. However,
the learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner was not responsible for the alleged handing over the
amount of compensation to the claimant other than, who was entitled
and in fact after a lapse of about two years of the alleged incident,
the service of the petitioner is terminated without holding
departmental inquiry.
4. It
is further submitted that in absence of any material on record
produced by the respondents revealing his specific role in commission
of alleged mistake, the petitioner was not duty bound to verify the
details about person receiving the amount of compensation and at no
point of time, the petitioner participated in getting the bank
account opened and depositing the cheque as alleged, the action taken
by the respondents without establishing the charge against the
petitioner is nothing but an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
powers in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
such action deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. It
is therefore submitted that issuance of show cause notice to the
petitioner which was duly replied and an explanation was rendered to
the authority about dispelling the allegation and therefore, the
order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr.
Thaker, learned advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3, relied on the
decision of the Apex Court and submitted that in a case of fraud and
misappropriation by an employee who is not appointed on regular or
permanent basis and in absence of specific role mandating the
respondent-Board to hold full-fledged departmental inquiry in such
kind of cases beyond the issuance of show cause notice, no other duty
is cast upon the board, and therefore, in a case like this when the
benefit accruing out of Labour Welfare Scheme is given to a person
other than the lawful claimant and further service of the petitioner
was purely honorary and liable to be terminated without any further
notice, the action taken by the respondent authority cannot be said
to be unreasonable and arbitrary exercise
of powers in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petition
deserves to be rejected.
7. Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record and rule governing the service condition of the employee
respondent-Board approved by the department of Labour and Welfare,
State of Gujarat on 05.03.1984, I find no merit in substance of
submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner inasmuch as the
terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 01.03.2001 by
which the petitioner was appointed to render honorary service as
Kendra Sanchalak and such service was liable to be terminated without
any notice, no duty is cast upon the respondent-Board to follow any
procedure of holding full-fledged departmental inquiry as contended
by the learned advocate for the petitioner in absence of specific
rules in this regards. The board has given a notice and on receipt of
reply, satisfaction was reached to the extent that the explanation
rendered by the petitioner was not satisfactory and service was
required to be put to an end.
8. In
the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of any merit
deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is hereby rejected. Notice
is discharged. No order as to costs.
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
koshti/
Top
