Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 152 (GUJ)

M. M. Patel v. Gujarat Vij Company

2016-01-21

AKIL KURESHI

body2016
ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 25.04.2000 passed by the appellate authority, under which, the petitioner's appeal against the order of punishment came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts are as under: Petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant employed by the Gujarat Electricity Board. He was stationed at Navsari Division. On the ground that the petitioner had committed temporary misappropriation of the funds of the board, the charge-sheet dated 18.09.1997 came to be issued against him. The gist of the charge against the petitioner was that he had received various amounts of electricity bills of large number of consumers and had also issued receipts for the same but instead of depositing such amount in the treasury of the electricity board, had used such amount for personal expenditure. The total amount of temporary misappropriation came to Rs. 2,52,250/-. In the charge sheet itself it was alleged that, during the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner had admitted the charges. Nevertheless, the proper departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure B) and held that the charge was proved. Copy of the report was supplied to the petitioner under communication dated 04.12.1998 He was allowed to make a representation on such report and show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The disciplinary authority passed the order dated 14.10.1999 imposing the punishment of termination of service of the petitioner. He challenged such order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority. The appeal, as noted above, came to be dismissed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I notice that the facts are not seriously in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as an employee of the GEB and was receiving amount of electricity bills of the consumers. He had collected large sum without depositing the same with the board. He had, during the preliminary inquiry, admitted the charges and, in fact, re-paid the amount. During the course of the inquiry he tried to retract his statements contending that the same were obtained under duress. Quite apart from there being no basis for sustaining such averments, there was enough independent evidence on record to drive home the charge. It was, in this background, the Inquiry Officer submit his report referring to the statements of witness also and held that the charge was proved. 4. Quite apart from there being no basis for sustaining such averments, there was enough independent evidence on record to drive home the charge. It was, in this background, the Inquiry Officer submit his report referring to the statements of witness also and held that the charge was proved. 4. The entire issue is based on factual finding of the Inquiry Officer upheld by the disciplinary authority. No perversity is pointed out to interfere with the such findings. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority having applied their minds to the evidence on record, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, I see no reason to interfere. 5. The side grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioner was of non-payment of dues even on the premise that the order of termination was final. Such a grievance was raised before this Court during the earlier hearings, upon which, the GEB filed a further affidavit dated 21.01.2013 along with which, a communication of the board dated 22.12.2011 was produced, in which, it has been stated that the amount of Rs. 2,16,814/- lying in the balance of the petitioner's CPF account, which included his as well as employer's contribution, was paid over to him on 22.05.2001 This issue, therefore, stands clarified. 6. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that despite the order of termination, petitioner would be entitled to pension. To this, counsel for the GEB clarified that pension scheme is not framed by the Board but is a general pension scheme under the Provident Fund Organizations. Provident Fund Commissioner is not the respondent herein. No directions, therefore, can be issued for payment of pension that too without ascertaining full facts. However, it appears that the Provident Fund Department has withheld consideration of the petitioner's request for pension on the ground that his litigation is pending before the High Court. If that be so, upon this petition being disposed of today, the Provident Fund Authorities will examine whether any pension is payable to the petitioner. 7. With above observations, petition is disposed of.