Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8035/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8035 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
P
C JADAV - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR NIKUNJ RAVAL, AGP for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR YB BRAHMBHATT, for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of the present petition, the petitioner – State has
challenged the order dated 3rd
June 2009 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar
in Application No.140 of 2006, allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 27.2.2006.
2. It
is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as a
Range Forest Officer, Seeds Range, Vadodara for the period from
7.4.1998 to 22.11.1998. It is alleged that he had made some wrong
entries in the diary, made false TA Bills and because of his
carelessness in work, there was loss in sprouting seedlings.
Therefore a show cause notice was issued to him on 5.11.1998 calling
upon him to give explanation.
2.1 It
is alleged that thereafter, after considering all the relevant
records, charge sheet was issued to respondent on 2.5.2000 for the
offences committed by him. Thereafter Special Inquiry Officer was
appointed who issued notice to the respondent and the respondent
filed his reply on 2.10.2004. The Special Inquiry Officer, after
hearing the respondent and after considering all the relevant records
came to the conclusion that charge Nos.(i) and (ii) were not proved
and charge Nos.(iii) and (iv) were partly proved and the said report
was given by the Special Inquiry Officer on 30.11.2004.
2.2 The
disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings/report given
by the Special Inquiry Officer and therefore, further show cause
notice was given by the said authority to the respondent on
16.8.2005. The respondent filed reply to the show cause notice on
27.9.2005. Thereafter the disciplinary authority recorded the oral
evidence of the respondent on 16.1.2006.
2.3 Thereafter
the disciplinary authority, after considering all the documentary
evidence, oral evidence as well as the submissions made by the
respondent, vide order dated 27.2.2006 imposed punishment on the
respondent of stoppage of one increment with future effect.
2.4
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred
Appeal No.140 of 2006 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The
Tribunal, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 3.6.2009
allowed the appeal of the respondent and quashed and set aside the
order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated
27.2.2006.
3. Heard
the learned advocates for the petitioner and perused the relevant
records. It is required to be noted that the Gujarat Civil Services
Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests dated 27.2.2006, imposing punishment of
stoppage of one increment with future effect, has elaborately
discussed in detail the reasons in this behalf in paragraphs Nos.8, 9
and 10 of the judgment and order.
4. Para
10 of the order reads as under :
“10.
All the five conclusions of the disciplinary authority in the order
of 27/02/2006 are not reasoned properly. They are either distorted
as in the case of TA Bill or superficial as in the case of seeds
failure. It would appear as if the disciplinary authority wanted only
certain excuses to fix the appellant rather than arriving at the
truth of the charges made against him in an objective, unbiased
manner, upholding the principles of natural justice, discipline and
accountability transparency and proactiveness in the department. The
appellant had just been promoted as R.F.O. From the cadre of
Forester. He was to be guided properly in discharging his functions
by the Dy.Conservator of Forests. It is stated by the appellant that
he was advised by his superior to indulge in certain unfair practices
which he did not. It cannot be discounted that the bias against the
appellant is his superior officers must have originated in the
failure of the appellant to carry out unfair practices. The net
result is the order of 27/02/2006 suffering irredeemably from
distortion, bias, and lack of impartiality and objectivity.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, it needs to be quashed.”
5. Learned
advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out
anything from the record to take a contrary view.
6. This
petition is therefore dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order
as to costs.
Sreeram. (K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
Top