Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 23 (GUJ)

MOHANLAL L. BHAKTA v. STATE

2002-01-15

SHARAD D.DAVE

body2002
SHARAD DAVE, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER herein this petition, Mohanlal L. Bhakta, Asstt. Solvent Chemist, Class-II, by this writ petition, has challenged the impugned order of his removal from service dtd. 16. 9. 86, and prayed for declaring the entire disciplinary proceedings including the inquiry held against the petitioner are bad in law, and prayed that, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all benefits and also for the consideration of promotion to the post of Class-I cadre from the date when his immediate junior came to be promoted to class-I cadre. ( 2 ) FROM the papers, it appears that, the original petitioner Mohanlal Bhakta, during the pendency of this CRA, has died and his widow Sushilaben and two sons viz. Sanjay and Tapaskumar are brought on record as per order dt. 23. 6. 1998 passed in Civil Application No. 4052 of 1998. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had put in 28 years of service and after a long years of service, the respondent authority has imposed a penalty of removal from service, which is a major punishment. The original petitioner graduated from Agriculture University at Anand in the year 1957, and joined the service of the erstwhile State of Bombay as Agriculture Officer, Revenue Sub-Division Sayan, Dist. Surat, in the year, 1958. In the year 1963, the petitioner was promoted as Agriculture Officer Gr. II. The petitioner was discharging his duties honestly, sincerely and with most integrity. The petitioner was then transferred to Union Territory, Dadra and Nagar Haveli on deputation as Agricultural and Veterinary Officer (Class-II) in the year 1968. In the year 1977, the petitioner has been appointed as Asstt. Soil Chemist at Ahwa, District Valsad. ( 4 ) THE petitioner came with a case that, while he was in service at Dadara and Nagar Haveli, the petitioner had refused to oblige the then Director of Agricultural in his personal matter. Since then, he has been subjected to harassment. The petitioner has been charge sheeted and also issued show cause notice on three occasions on various grounds and alleging certain irregularities against him. Ultimately, the respondent No. 2, had to either withdraw or drop the inquiry against the petitioner in two cases as nothing could be proved against the petitioner. But the petitioner has been harassed all these years for no fault of his own. Ultimately, the respondent No. 2, had to either withdraw or drop the inquiry against the petitioner in two cases as nothing could be proved against the petitioner. But the petitioner has been harassed all these years for no fault of his own. In the 3rd inquiry, which is the subject matter of the present petition, to which nothing substantial could be found against the present petitioner. Nine (9) years after the institution of inquiry the authorities thought it fit to remove the petitioner from service vide order dt. Sept. 16, 1986, for the minor charges and allegedly, proved against the petitioner, the respondent authority took opportunity of taking revenge by imposing major penalty of removal from service. It could be pertinent to note that, the charge sheet containing five articles, out of which, only one charge, was allegedly held proved against the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, he was given show cause notice dt. 25. 11. 1976 alleging commission of irregularities in performing duties etc. On perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner, to the show cause notice, the respondent Director of Agricultural ordered stoppage of one annual increment of the petitioner without future effect. After the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2, Director, withdrew his earlier order for stoppage of one annual increment. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, second show cause notice dt. 3. 11. 1976 also issued against the petitioner on the ground of commission of irregularities in purchase of articles when he was in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The petitioner submitted in his reply that the respondent Director entrusted the inquiry to Spl. Officer, for the Departmental Inquiry on 18. 9. 79. The respondent No. 2, kept aside the report of the inquiry officer, for 7 long years, since it was in favour of the petitioner. Vide order dt. 17. 1. 1986 the Director, Agricultural, was pleased to exonerate the petitioner. ( 7 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the charge sheet dt. 8. 6. 77 was served upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 alleging misuse of government vehicle (jeep) and withdrawl of wrong daily allowances. The respondent No. 2, by an order dtd. 3. 5. 1978, entrusted the matter of inquiry to Spl. Officer, Departmental Inquiries, at Ahmedabad. The petitioner by his letter dt. 1. 6. 8. 6. 77 was served upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 alleging misuse of government vehicle (jeep) and withdrawl of wrong daily allowances. The respondent No. 2, by an order dtd. 3. 5. 1978, entrusted the matter of inquiry to Spl. Officer, Departmental Inquiries, at Ahmedabad. The petitioner by his letter dt. 1. 6. 1979, submitted his written defence statement before the Spl. Officer, without having the benefit of looking at the relevant document, as they were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of repeated request. After almost 2 years, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Director of Agriculture. Thereupon, a second show cause notice dt. 12. 2. 1981, was served upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, he has not been supplied the copy of the report by the inquiry officer, but was only given some abstract of the report. On going through the whole report, it appears that, in substance the report was in favour of the petitioner whereby, out of 5 charges leveled against the petitioner, only one charge has been proved against the petitioner. Against the show cause notice, issued by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner too, filed the reply on 21. 12. 1981 and also requested for engaging the legal assistance. But his request was turned down. Ultimately, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dt. 17. 4. 82. ( 9 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, after submitting reply to the show cause notice, nothing was heard from the respondent for long time. However, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development dt. 16. 3. 83. It is pertinent to note that the said show cause notice was issued after almost 3 years after the submission of the report by the inquiry officer. In the show cause notice, it is mentioned that all the 5 charges leveled against the petitioner are held proved. The petitioner replied the show cause notice vide letter dtd. 6. 4. 1983. Ultimately, vide order dtd. 16. 9. In the show cause notice, it is mentioned that all the 5 charges leveled against the petitioner are held proved. The petitioner replied the show cause notice vide letter dtd. 6. 4. 1983. Ultimately, vide order dtd. 16. 9. 1986, the petitioner has been removed from service and has been abruptly asked to hand over the charge of the post. ( 10 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, right from 1979, the petitioner has been drawing fixed salary and has not been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar (for short E. B.) whereby, he has suffered loss of Rs. 6 lacs by way of loss of increments all these years. The petitioners juniors have been promoted to the higher post in the year 1980, whereas, his case was not considered at all. The petitioners request for permission to engage the legal assistance to defend his case from the institutionof show cause notice issued repeatedly was also denied. He has not been informed as to whether the advise from the Gujarat Public Service Commission was sought by the Government before inflicting major punishment of removal from service. Further, the witnesses were examined and cross examined in presence of the petitioner. One Shri Patel was appointed as Inquiry Officer as Spl. Officer, for Departmental Inquiry whereas, the inquiry report was written by Shri N. M. Kamdar, who never heard in any proceedings as Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry. The Apex Court, in judgment reported in AIR 1973, SC 2275 in the case of Dr. M. N. Dasamma vs. State of A. P. has held that the Tribunal consisting of two members, for holding disciplinary proceedings against the A. P. S. R. T. C. servant, one of the members of the Tribunal alone held the inquiry, heard the arguments and submitted the report then this court came to a conclusion that, the same is illegal and void. In the case of Mohanbhai Dungarbhai Parmar vs. Y. B. Zala, reported in 1979 (20) GLR page 497, the delay of one and half year must be considered as fatal on the point of fair and reasonable opportunity to the officer concerned, the show cause notice for the charges leveled against the petitioner. In the case of Mohanbhai Dungarbhai Parmar vs. Y. B. Zala, reported in 1979 (20) GLR page 497, the delay of one and half year must be considered as fatal on the point of fair and reasonable opportunity to the officer concerned, the show cause notice for the charges leveled against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the delay by itself, therefore, constitute the denial of opportunity to reply the show cause notice and the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner was also not supplied with necessary documents though repeated request was made, this amounts to breach of principle of natural justice, in as much as the documents which could have thrown light to the petition on the basis of which, the petitioner could have submitted his explanation. The copies of most important documents like log book/tour diary of driver was not supplied to the petitioner at any point of time. Therefore, also, the whole inquiry and subsequent steps taken thereof, are perverse from material irregularities in as much as the important documents were not supplied to the petitioner. ( 11 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, rule of "no evidence" is attracted in this case, not only in case where there is complete lack of evidence i. e. where there is not a little or shred of evidence but also the evidence if any, is not capable of having any probative value, or on the basis of which no Tribunal could reasonably and logically come to a conclusion about the existence of non-existence of facts relevant for determinination. In other words, the important peace of evidence which had a real probative value i. e. the tour diary of the driver was not produced at any point of time and therefore, the decision of the authorities suffers from material infirmity in law. In view of the settled legal position, if there is inordinate delay on the part of the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion, the same would amount to waiver on the part of the disciplinary authority. In the facts of the present case, no action was taken by the State Government for about 4 years. After submission of the explanation by the petitioner and setting away the order of removal was came to be served upon the petitioner. The said order of removal is not a speaking order. In the facts of the present case, no action was taken by the State Government for about 4 years. After submission of the explanation by the petitioner and setting away the order of removal was came to be served upon the petitioner. The said order of removal is not a speaking order. It does not mentioned any ground whatsoever. In view of the judgment of the apex court reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 , in case of Anilkumar vs. Presiding Officer and ors. the disciplinary authority ought to have given all the reasons by agreeing or disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and it must pass such speaking order. On this ground also the action on the part of the respondent authority suffers from the material infirmity and the same should be quashed and set aside. ( 12 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that most of the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved by the Inquiry Officer and never could have come to a conclusion of inflicting punishment of removal. Apart from quantum of punishment, considering the merits alone, no misconduct can be held to be proved against the petitioner and in view of the decision of the apex court, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1022, in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. The Ulhas Nagar Municipal Council and Ors. the charges would not amount to any misconduct on the part of the petitioner and on merits there could have been no punishment inflicted on the petitioner whatsoever. ( 13 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, in case of Shri S. M. Sharma vs. South Gujarat University, reported in 1992 (23) GLR page 233, and in the case of Mohanlal Parmar vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1979 (20) GLR it has been held that, before inflicting penalty of economic death on petitioner, the respondent authority is bound in law, to determine the quantum of guilt before inflicting such heavy punishment. The respondent authority ought to have considered all aspects in particular and the respondent authority ought to have considered vital consideration regarding the nature and magnitude of charge and desirability of retaining or dismissing the Government servant and penalty must be decided after weighing the prose and cons of the matter and same should be reflected in the order of the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the authority have failed to determine the question of penalty and have failed to maintain the balance between various questions and determined just the penalty not appropriate with the misconduct. Therefore, the action of the respondent authority requires to be set aside. ( 14 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has put in 28 years of service and at the fag end of his service, he has been denied all the benefits and he has been subjected to several mental agony since 1977 and he has also been denied promotion. The petitioner is an innocent person and he is made to suffer as he has failed to favour the then Director of Agriculture in his personal matters. Therefore, the action of the respondent authority is required to be condemned by this Court. Therefore, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, Mr. Nikhil, LA, appearing on behalf of Tanna Asso. also relied on the following authority:-I) 1973 SC 2275 (Dr. M. N. Dasamma vs. State of AP) ii) 1985 SC 1121 (Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer) iii) 1971 SC 1021 Century Spg. Co. vs. Ulhasnagar munic. Council and Ors.) iv) 1979 (20) GLR 497 (Mohanbhai Parmar vs. Y. B. Zala) v) 1992 (23) GLR 233 (S. M. Sharma vs. South Gujarat University)14a against these submission, the Ld. AGP. Mr. Kodekar, for the State, submitted that, on behalf of the respondentAdmn. Officer, the Director of Agriculture has filed affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the petitioner has been removed from service for grave misconduct of preparing wrong TA bills and misuse of Government vehicle, creating false record and thereby, financial irregularities have been committed by him and that too after institution of departmental inquiry and also giving him opportunity of defence. ( 15 ) THE petitioner was on deputation at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and therefore, he was under administrative control of the administrator Dadra and Nagar Haveli. For the act and commissions done by the petitioner, while he was on deputation at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the Director of Agriculture was not at all concerned. ( 15 ) THE petitioner was on deputation at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and therefore, he was under administrative control of the administrator Dadra and Nagar Haveli. For the act and commissions done by the petitioner, while he was on deputation at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the Director of Agriculture was not at all concerned. For the charges leveled against the petitioner, while the petitioner was on deputation at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and at the time of inquiry proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, the Central Bureau of Investigation had sent the investigation report to this department, as Shri Bhakta at that time had come back in the State of Gujarat from Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Out of five charges, leveled against the petitioner, in four charges the petitioner has been proved guilty and therefore, for one charge minor punishment was to be imposed and for the remaining three charges, major punishment was required to be imposed. Therefore, his increment for one year, without future effect was withheld. In an appeal to the Government, the punishment was reviewed and the petitioner was simply rebuked for those charges. In the circumstances, since the petitioner was on deputation at relevant point of time at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and the charges leveled against him for the said period of his service, the investigation was initiated by the Administrator, Dadra AND Nagar Haveli, and action was taken against him pursuant to the report from the departmental inquiry officer, which was instituted on the basis of the investigation report received from the CBI. Therefore, the same is according to rule. Hence, the action taken in this regard by this department was according to rules and procedure and therefore, allegations put by him in this regard are vague, misleading and incorrect and therefore, not acceptable. ( 16 ) THE charges pertaining to wrong claim of TA bills, and other irregularities, the departmental inquiry was instituted against him and the inquiry officer has held that the charges regarding incorrect claim of TA bills from Baroda to Halol, use of Government vehicle for personal purchases etc. are proved and therefore, after taking consent of the GPSC the services of the petitioner is terminated and therefore, the charges leveled against the petitioner are legal, and according to rules and procedure. ( 17 ) HEARD LA for the respondent. are proved and therefore, after taking consent of the GPSC the services of the petitioner is terminated and therefore, the charges leveled against the petitioner are legal, and according to rules and procedure. ( 17 ) HEARD LA for the respondent. The irregularities for which, the petitioners increment was withheld was pertaining to the period, when the petitioner was on deputation at Dadra and Nagar Haveli and the action was taken against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Departmental Inquiry Officer. The matter for which the petitioners service was terminated, has no connection whatsoever, with the act and commission done by the petitioner, while he was at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, under the control of Administrator. The second inquiry was also pertaining to the service of petitioner at Dadra and Nagar Haveli for which, the administrator has instituted the departmental inquiry on receipt of the report. The delay took place in finalising the inquiry, on account of petitioners continued correspondence for long period on the point of his defence and therefore, the departmental inquiry was delayed. The LA for the respondent submits that, with regard to the non-supply of the copies of the relevant documents is nothing but to misguide the court. The charges leveled against the petitioner have been minutely examined in presence of the petitioner. The Departmental Inquiry Officer, also held in his report that the petitioner has committed grave irregularities, by preparing wrong TA bills and has also misused the Government vehicle. The petitioner has also failed to produce any evidence in support of his defence. The witness and all the relevant records have been examined during the process of inquiry in presence of the petitioner. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that he has not been supplied with the relevant documents and records. He has committed grave financial irregularities, for which, the termination of the services is appropriate punishment. ( 18 ) IT is the interpretation of the petitioner that, the Departmental Inquiry Officer has not held the charges proved. But the same is not true. The fact is that, the charges were proved and accordingly, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice as to why, his services should not be terminated. ( 18 ) IT is the interpretation of the petitioner that, the Departmental Inquiry Officer has not held the charges proved. But the same is not true. The fact is that, the charges were proved and accordingly, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice as to why, his services should not be terminated. After receipt of his reply, the Government took decision to terminate the petitioner and referred the same to the G. P. S. C. for its concurrence, as the petitioner was a Gazetted Officer. After receipt of the concurrence of the G. P. S. C. , and the Government by memorandum dt. 19. 6. 1986, issued order terminating the service of the petitioner. Thus, the delay has been caused in observing the procedure and not due to any other reason. When the government servant is found involved in such a grave misconduct and/or irregularities, for that, the inquiry was instituted, the Government servant is not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar (E. B.) nor any promotion. When the juniors have been considered for the promotion, when senior Government servants against whom inquiry was instituted and still pending, his consideration for promotion is being kept in sealed cover and if selected, are given promotion after completion of such inquiry. In the instant case, since, the petitioner has been proved guilty in the inquiry, and as a result to it, the question of giving him promotion or allowing him to cross of E. B. does not arise. ( 19 ) SO far as the petitioners grievance regarding engagement of legal advisor, is concerned, it can be clarified that since, the Government and the Departmental Inquiry Officer, have taken decision for the issue in question in view of the rules and orders of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner cannot be given a special consideration. It is the case of the respondent that, the petitioner should have joined the Departmental Inquiry Officer as necessary party respondent. Since the Department Inquiry Officer has not been joined as party respondent by the petitioner and thereby, not giving opportunity to clarify the point in question, the petition deserves to be rejected on this ground. The copies of the documents which were found necessary were supplied to the petitioner. The proceedings of the departmental inquiry had taken place in the presence of the petitioner itself. The copies of the documents which were found necessary were supplied to the petitioner. The proceedings of the departmental inquiry had taken place in the presence of the petitioner itself. Therefore, all the documents including log book, tour diary of the driver were made available to the petitioner. The petitioners pray about non supply of the necessary documents, is simply with a view to misguide the court and to obtain the sympathy of this Court. The petitioner was Gazetted Officer and therefore, before any decision is taken, the procedure laid down under the rules and orders are required to be followed. Thus, delay is caused in observation of the procedure and therefore, the same is justifying and legal. The order of removal is speaking and therefore, the same is justifying and legal. It is also proved that thepetitioner had prepared wrong TA bills and as per rules in force, for claiming wrong TA bills, the punishment is the removal from service. Thus the action of the Government in removal of the petitioner from service is legal and justifying. LA for the respondent further submits that, the necessary consents have been obtained from the G. P. S. C. in view of the fact that the petitioner is a gazetted officer. It is not obligatory on the part of the government to give copy of remarks to the G. P. S. C. , irregularities in which the petitioner is involved are of very serious in nature. Inspite of the fact that, the charges against the petitioner are proved, if the petitioner is not punished as per rules then, other government servants will get inspiration to commit such irregularities and by that, government administration will ruin to worst. Therefore, the action of the Government is legal and just and therefore, there is no cause whatsoever, for the petition in question and therefore, the same requires to be rejected with cost. ( 20 ) IN support of his submission, LD AGP Mr. Kodekar, has relied on a case of Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. vs. P. Basha and Ors. reported in (1999) 9 SCC page 190, and submitted that looking to the gravity of the charges as proved in the departmental inquiry, against the petitioner, assuming for sake of arguments, that the punishment of dismissal even if it is disproportionate, could not be reduced by High Court to `no punishment. Mr. reported in (1999) 9 SCC page 190, and submitted that looking to the gravity of the charges as proved in the departmental inquiry, against the petitioner, assuming for sake of arguments, that the punishment of dismissal even if it is disproportionate, could not be reduced by High Court to `no punishment. Mr. Kodekar also relied on a case of Sanchalakshri and Ors. vs. Vijaykumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta reported in (1998) 8 SCC page 245 and submitted that, in a case before the Apex Court, the respondent Vijaykumar Mehta who happened to be a teacher, committed forgery by signing signature of D. E. O. and thereby committed grave misconduct. It was further held that a teacher is expected to maintain higher standard of honesty and integrity in view of the position he holds. Ultimately, it was held that, the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the School Authority. . ( 21 ) I have gone through the authority, cited by both the parties. It is unfortunate that, during the pendency of the present Spl. Civil Application, the petitioner has died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. It is also true that, in 1958, he joined the service at Sayan, Surat District and promoted as Agriculture Officer, Gr. II, and was deputed to Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. ( 22 ) FROM the papers on record, it appears that, while the petitioner was at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, he was given show cause notice with charges of misconduct and ultimately, it was withdrawn. However, during the period when he was at Halol serving as Assistant Soil Chemist, he was in charge of one Govt. jeep bearing No. GJB 5850, which he used for his personal purpose. Thereafter, as per the charges dtd. 4. 1. 1975, 10. 1. 75, 26. 2. 75, 27. 2. 75, 12. 3. 75, from 5. 4. 75 to 6. 4. 75 and 27. 6. 75, as well as he was fully aware that the CBI investigation was pending against him, while he was at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, he failed to disclose the same and that he misused the jeep for his own use and shown as official visit. Therefore, prepared a false TA bill etc. 75 to 6. 4. 75 and 27. 6. 75, as well as he was fully aware that the CBI investigation was pending against him, while he was at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, he failed to disclose the same and that he misused the jeep for his own use and shown as official visit. Therefore, prepared a false TA bill etc. He being a gazetted officer, inquiry was held by independent body of specially appointed for departmental inquiry against the gazetted officer and as per the say of the petitioner, only one charge and that too partly proved against the petitioner and rest of four charges were not proved against the petitioner, and inspite of that, he was removed from service with an ulterior motive to save skin of some officers. The petitioner was borne on 1 2/04/1931 and was to retire on 30. 4. 1989. During the last phase of his career, the petitioner was forced to under go the mental agony for long time and thereby, was kept away from employment and thereby, was made to suffer financial crisis and privilege available to him. According to the petitioner the said action on the part of the respondent is bad in eye of law as there is no evidence regarding the same. The necessary papers required for defending the case, were not supplied to the petitioner. The inquiry officer was changed, and the person who gave the report is not aware about the evidence recorded previously by the previous officer, that no permission as required by the GPSC is obtained for removing the petitioner from service, that the respondent authority neither agreed nor disagreed with the report and delay is caused in holding inquiry by the respondent and lastly dismissing the petitioner by the respondent for the alleged offences are the main point advanced by the LA for the petitioner. ( 23 ) I have also gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer. I do not find any discrepancy in any allegation made by the present petitioner against the respondent. So far as the necessary papers required for his defence are concerned, the same were produced at the time of hearing of the evidence as the same transpires from the report. I do not find any discrepancy in any allegation made by the present petitioner against the respondent. So far as the necessary papers required for his defence are concerned, the same were produced at the time of hearing of the evidence as the same transpires from the report. So far as the allegation regarding only one charge is proved and rest are not proved is concerned, it is worth to note that first charge was only partly proved and the charges dt. 10. 1. 75, 26. 2. 75 to 27. 2. 75 and for 12. 3. 75 are already proved whereas, charges for 4. 1. 75 is partly proved and the charges for 6. 4. 75 and 27. 7. 75, are not proved. If we peruse page 68 of the paper book, which is last but one page of the report of the inquiry officer, it is crystal clear that in this report, the inquiry officer has found petitioner guilty for misuse of jeep for his private purpose and thereby, made adjustment in Kilometers to show that, the jeep has been used for official purpose and thereby prepared false TA bills. In the last line on page 69, it is mentioned that the charge at Sr. No. 1, ispartly proved. Therefore, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that only one charge is partly proved and rest of the charges are not proved and accordingly almost all the charges are proved against the petitioner. ( 24 ) I have gone through the whole report and there is no question of `no evidence at all against the petitioner. None of the parties wanted the original records of the proceedings from the Government therefore, the same is not called for and relied on the papers, produced on record. This court cannot sit in appeal over the decision given by the inquiry officer and substitute the same with the court findings. When a person is entrusted with a government vehicle, for his official work, has to maintain the complete record of the vehicle so that, in turn he can produce the same before the competent authority. It appears that on 10. 1. 75, the petitioner had gone to Vadodara to give the jeep for service, but it was not done on the same day but the service was done on 11. 1. 1975. It appears that on 10. 1. 75, the petitioner had gone to Vadodara to give the jeep for service, but it was not done on the same day but the service was done on 11. 1. 1975. From the very beginning it is not the case of the petitioner that, he was having some land selling problem and he was required to go back to Halol on 10. 1. 75. Merely because Mr. Kaji, Driver and Presenting Officer Mr. Shaikh being muslims, it is too early to believe that, they were on enimical relations with the present petitioner. ( 25 ) FROM the authority, cited by LA Mr. Nikhil, in case of Mohanbhai Parmar (Supra), it has been held that, it is the disciplinary authority to take steps against the petitioner after a period of one and half year regarding remaining absent without leave. Thereupon, this Court in writ petition came to a conclusion that such delay must be considered as denial of opportunity in violation of principle of natural justice in as much as after one and half year, it would be humanly impossible for any one with average memory and recollection to explain under what circumstances, he was unable to attend the parade or to remain present at the time roll coll was taken. In case of Anilkumar vs. Presiding Officer and Ors. reported in AIR 1985, SC 1121, it is held that the report of the inquiry officer was not reasoned one and came to the conclusion that the order of termination is based on such proceedings, were not liable to be set aside. ( 26 ) IN case of Dr. M. N. Dasamma vs. State of A. P. reported in AIR 1973 2275, it appears that, out of 2 members of the Tribunal only one of them alone holding inquiry, his successor merely hearing arguments and submitting report is illegal, and void. IN case of Mr. S. M. Sharma, (Supra) regarding art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ court cannot sit in appeal over decision in disciplinary inquiry. There are two exceptions :- (i) while decision is based on `no evidence and (ii) where decision is perverse or unreasonable. In this case, there is sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that, it is the case of evidence only. 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ court cannot sit in appeal over decision in disciplinary inquiry. There are two exceptions :- (i) while decision is based on `no evidence and (ii) where decision is perverse or unreasonable. In this case, there is sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that, it is the case of evidence only. ( 27 ) FROM the records of this Court, it appears that, as I have come to the conclusion that, it is the case of complete evidence which goes to prove that, the petitioner has for adjustment of Kilometers has prepared false TA bills and thereby, he has misused the powers which is vested in him. I do find reasoned order given by the inquiry officer. There is no perverseness or nothing on record to show much less, which requires the interference of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the opinion that, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. .