Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7957/1998 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7957 of 1998
=========================================================
S
N BHATT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
IS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 2nd
April 1998 imposing a cut in the pension of the petitioner.
2. The
petitioner was working as Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry and
he superannuated from service on 31st December 1996. A
charge sheet was issued to him holding departmental inquiry into two
charges. The first charge was that without advertising in the
newspapers and without getting the competitive prices for purchases
over 10,000/-. One lakh semen straw were purchased for Rs 19,500/-.
The second charge was with regard to forged sanction and purchase
of 10,000/- semen straws. The first charge was found partly proved
and the second charge was proved fully. The petitioner was called
upon to send this representation against the findings of the Inquiry
Officer within 15 days. Thereafter a penalty of cut of Rs 200/-
per month from pension for 5 years has been imposed on the
petitioner. Hence this petition.
4. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has averred that no purchase worth Rs
19,500 was ever made and the allegations was false. He submitted
that the allegations were not fully proved and therefore, the
impugned order deserved to be quashed.
5. Learned
advocate for the respondent has contended that the petitioner had
not followed certain procedure and have purchased certain items for
which no advertisement was given in the newspaper. This proves that
the petitioner has misconducted himself and indulged into misuse of
powers.
6. From
the papers on record it is found that the petitioner has not followed
the appropriate procedure and have purchased certain items for which
no advertisement was given in the newspaper. This proves that the
petitioner has misconducted himself and indulged into misuse of
powers by committing such irregularities. So far as the grievance
made by the petitioner with regard to the procedural aspect in the
departmental inquiry proceedings are concerned. From the record it is
evidence that there is sufficient evidence against th petitioner.
The petitioner could not point out any flaw in the inquiry report
where the allegations are proved as held therein. Hence, the
decision taken by the concerned authority is just and proper. This
petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.
Jhaveri,J.)
mary//
Top