Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3965/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3965 of 2009
======================================
B
G KATHIRIYA
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
MR VAIBHAV VYAS for MR PARESH
UPADHYAY for Petitioner.
MS MANISAH NARSINGHANI, AGP for
Respondent No.1.
None for Respondent Nos.2 -
4.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 12/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has called into question judgment and order dated
19.5.2008 of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.150 of
2007, whereby the appeal was dismissed and dismissal from service of
the petitioner was upheld. Before that the order dismissing the
petitioner from his service as Talati-cum-Mantri under the Taluka
Panchayat was made on 10.11.2005, after recording detailed reasons as
to why serious charge against the petitioner was held to have been
proved in the enquiry held against him. The plea of the petitioner
for taking a lenient view was also considered and the departmental
appeal preferred from that order was also dismissed by a detailed
order dated 25th April 2007. The charge against the
petitioner involved forgery of signature of Deputy Collector in the
revenue record, which was in possession of the petitioner at the
relevant time.
2. The
impugned judgment of the tribunal was sought to be assailed on the
grounds that the petitioner was punished for the charge which was not
levelled against him and the enquiry held against him was in
violation of the principles of natural justice. Both these grounds
were admittedly not agitated before the tribunal. Third ground
canvassed by learned counsel was to the effect that the entries in
revenue record against which forged signatures were put were
ultimately confirmed by the higher authorities and no prejudice was
caused to any party. It was on that basis submitted by learned
counsel, Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, that the case called for interference by
this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Learned
AGP, Ms.Narsinghani relied upon the observations made by the Supreme
Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’
Union [(2000) 4 SCC
245]
to submit that this Court has no appellate jurisdiction over the
awards made by a tribunal presided over by a judicial officer and the
findings of fact recorded by the duly constituted tribunal should
ordinarily be considered to have become final. Going through the
orders referred to herein above and the material placed on record by
the petitioner, it was abundantly clear that the findings of fact
recorded by the enquiry officer were not perverse and forgery of
signature of a higher officer was a matter serious enough to take a
strict view regardless of any prejudice being caused to any party.
Once it was established that forgery in the revenue records was
committed while the record was in custody of the petitioner, the
enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were entitled to and
justified in drawing appropriate inference to hold the petitioner
responsible for the lapse and the petitioner cannot be heard to say
that forgery of the signature by the petitioner was required to be
proved by positive evidence.
4. In
the above facts neither the findings of the enquiry officer could be
assailed nor could punishment shown to be shockingly disproportionate
to justify interference with the impugned order. Therefore, the
petition is summarily dismissed.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*malek
Top