Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 74 (GUJ)

DL RATHOD v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-01-11

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.07.2010, whereby the petitioner is imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect. The aforesaid charge emanates from chargesheet dated 17th March, 2009, inter alia, containing two charges; (1) the petitioner had himself conducted the inquiry in relation to an unauthorised use of Gas Cylinders by Om PTC College, Chiloda, which was against the principles of natural justice; (2) the petitioner was unable to controvert the statement of Rector made on 02.01.2007 stating that the institute was engaged only in educational or academic activities and was neither engaged in commercial activities. The gravamen of the charge is of procedural lapses in entire episode of seizing and releasing gas Cylinders by the petitioner. After holding a regular departmental inquiry, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.07.2010. 2. Learned advocate Ms.Dharitri Pancholi for H.L. Patel Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the entire disciplinary proceeding has been initiated on wrong premise de hors the rules and regulations of the State Government. She has contended that the case of the respondent authority is that while dealing such seizer and release of the gas Cylinders, there were procedural lapses and the petitioner was not authorised to act in any such a manner. She has submitted that in the entire chargesheet as well as in the inquiry report does not indicate the procedure which was violated by the petitioner in following seizer and release of the Gas Cylinders. She has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 09.01.2002 passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, in which entire power of Section 6(A)(B) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is conferred to District Supply Officer for essential commodities having valuation below Rs.1 Lakh. She has submitted that eight Cylinders were seized by the petitioner would definitely come under the valuation of Rs.1 Lakh as envisaged under the aforesaid order and hence, the petitioner was well within his powers and authority to release aforesaid Cylinders on the satisfaction arrived by him in calling upon rector and after due consideration of her statement made before him. In that view of the matter she has submitted that it cannot be said any procedural violation committed by the present petitioner in the aforesaid entire exercise carried out by him and, she has urged that the impugned order of penalty is required to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned AGP Mr.Chintan Dave appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the petitioner has imposed only minor penalty and looking to the charges against the petitioner, the same does not require any interference by this court. He has drawn attention of this court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent authority, wherein he has stated that the petitioner has committed procedural lapses and has not followed procedure prescribed in the rules and hence, imposition of penalty on him is justified. 4. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and I have perused entire records of the present petition. 5. The entire controversy in the present writ petition revolves on the prescribed procedure to be followed in case of confiscation / seizer and release of the essential commodities. It is pertinent to note that neither chargesheet nor affidavit-in-reply remotely suggest about particular procedural lapses envisaged in the rules which are violated by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent authorities that he was not having any authority under the law to deal with the essential commodities seized by him in the manner which he has adopted. The order dated 09.01.2002 passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar manifests that the petitioner has been conferred with powers to deal with essential commodities having valuation below Rs.1 Lakh. Indubitably, the valuation of eight Cylinders was below valuation prescribed in the aforesaid order dated 09.01.2002. Thus, the petitioner had the authority to exercise powers under Section 6(A)(B) of the Act of search, seizer and release of essential commodities. 6. The respondent authorities are blissfully silent on the aspect of violation of procedural lapses alleged to have been done by the petitioner while carrying out search and seizer of essential commodities in the aforesaid OM PTC College, Chiloda, Gandhinagar as a Seizer Officer. The affidavit also does not mention about particular procedure which was not followed by the present petitioner nor does it point out any violation of provision of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 7. In view of the aforenoted observations, the impugned order of penalty is hereby quashed and set aside. The affidavit also does not mention about particular procedure which was not followed by the present petitioner nor does it point out any violation of provision of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 7. In view of the aforenoted observations, the impugned order of penalty is hereby quashed and set aside. The necessary consequential benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months. 8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.