Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 177 (GUJ)

Popatbhai M. Bhatia v. State of Gujarat

2016-01-25

AKIL KURESHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. Petitioner, Talati-cum-Mantri at the relevant time, has filed this petition seeking two prayers. First is to set aside an order of suspension dated 03.04.2000 as at Annexure-C to the petition issued by the Deputy District Development Officer, Junagadh. The second prayer is with respect to declaration of his arrest by the authorities as illegal and for payment of special cost towards compensation. 2. The petitioner was discharging his duty as Talati-cum-Mantri where he was first transferred from Taluka Una to Taluka Kutiyana under order dated 14.06.1999 He was later on transferred under order dated 05.07.1999 from the said place to Kheda-Sejaliyala. The later order of transfer the petitioner challenged by filing SCA No. 34 of 2000 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 08.02.2000 stayed the same. 3. Be that as it may, the Deputy District Development Officer passed impugned order dated 03.04.2000 placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that while under transfer from Taluka Una, he was relieved on 17.06.1999 The petitioner, however, did not hand over Government records which were in his possession concerning Kheda-Sejaliyala Group Gram Panchayat to another Talati-cum-Mantri. He retained such record with himself and left for joining Kutiyana along with such record. On account of such act on part of the petitioner, the administration of the concerned Gram Panchayat under Taluka Una is completely stalled. The District was facing water scarcity. The entire administration is geared for facing such challenge. In view of such scarcity situation, the prime aim of the administration is to provide employment to the people. The Government has undertaken various employment oriented schemes. The Government has also framed scheme for allotment of lands and assistance for building house on such lands. In absence of the Government record, the petitioner has taken the entire Panchayat administration on ransom. The petitioner was also served several reminders, despite which he did not hand over such records. He was, therefore, placed under suspension by the said authority in exercise of statutory powers under the Panchayats Act. 4. It appears that thereafter also, further allegations of the petitioner retaining record of the further transfer were made. The petitioner was also served several reminders, despite which he did not hand over such records. He was, therefore, placed under suspension by the said authority in exercise of statutory powers under the Panchayats Act. 4. It appears that thereafter also, further allegations of the petitioner retaining record of the further transfer were made. On account of the same, the Mamlatdar filed complaint for offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and exercised powers under Section 25 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code of detention of the petitioner for retracting important Government documents. It is in this background that the petitioner has made the second prayer. 5. The second prayer being completely unrelated, I have confined my scrutiny to the petitioner's prime prayer against the order of suspension and leave it to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law with respect to his alleged unauthorized detention, claim of compensation for the same. 6. Coming to the question of suspension of the petitioner, it is undisputed that subsequently, the petitioner was also visited with the charge sheet for the same set of allegations and the disciplinary authority by his order dated 30.06.2009, imposed punishment of withholding of one increment with future effect. This order of punishment the petitioner tried to challenge in this pending petition by seeking amendment by filing Civil Application No. 4770 of 2011. Learned Single Judge, however, did not grant such amendment and rejected the application by order dated 03.07.2012 7. Under such circumstances, Counsel Shri Pathak for the petitioner submitted that the order of suspension was passed without application of mind. The petitioner had not retained any records. In any case, his transfer was stayed by the High Court. The authorities, therefore, committed an error in placing him under suspension. Counsel further submitted that in any case, when the issue of the Government records being retrieved or resolved, the petitioner could not have been continued under suspension. At one stage, Counsel had also raised the issue of competence of the Deputy District Development Officer to fix the petitioner under suspension when he was already transferred under the district administration of Porbandar. At one stage, Counsel had also raised the issue of competence of the Deputy District Development Officer to fix the petitioner under suspension when he was already transferred under the district administration of Porbandar. However, in view of the reply filed by the respondents clarifying that despite bifurcation of Junagadh district into Junagadh and Porbandar districts, the administrative control was retained by District Development Officer, Junagadh and that, therefore, he had placed the petitioner under suspension as a disciplinary authority, this contention was not pressed with any degree of seriousness. 8. I have also heard learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. The short question is, should under facts of the case, the order of suspension be set aside, declaring it as illegal? As noted, allegations against the petitioner were that despite he was transferred in June 1999, the petitioner for months together, after being relieved from the place of working, did not return the Government records pertaining to the Group Gram Panchayat where he was earlier working. This period lasted more than six months, during which several reminders were sent by the administration to the petitioner. The period was one of scarcity. The revenue administration had to gear up for meeting with the peoples' requirements by providing employment and by implementing welfare schemes floated by the Government. For over six months, no progress could be made for want of official records. 10. It is not for me to opine on whether these allegations were true or untrue. The background is taken note of only to demonstrate that the charges against the petitioner were extremely serious. When an order of suspension is challenged before the Court, the Court ordinarily would not enter into the veracity of the allegations on which the order of suspension is passed. Particularly, in the present case when the order of suspension was followed by departmental charge sheet, in which the petitioner has been found guilty, it would simply not be correct on my part to go into the correctness of the allegations in the context of the order of suspension. It would be the onus on part of the petitioner to challenge the order disciplinary authority and to establish that he had committed no misconduct and the allegations against him were plainly baseless. It would be the onus on part of the petitioner to challenge the order disciplinary authority and to establish that he had committed no misconduct and the allegations against him were plainly baseless. Even otherwise, in the present petition, except for averring that he was not carrying records with himself, there is little else which has been produced to establish such averments. 11. The stay granted by the High Court on 08.02.2000 against the transfer of the petitioner is completely in a different background and had nothing to do with the petitioner's transfer in June 1999 from Una Taluka to Kutiyana Taluka. Further, even if the records were later on retrieved, would not mean that the order of suspension should be automatically revoked. The petitioner was placed under suspension not for retrieval of the Government records, but to inquire his conduct pending departmental inquiry. 12. Under the circumstances, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.