Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 203 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. K. C. Raval

2020-01-30

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner authority is seeking a prayer to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 14.06.2006 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar (the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 196 of 2005. 2. At the outset, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner-State has submitted that the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal since the judgment and order is passed without discussing any evidence. He has further submitted that in fact the Tribunal should have considered the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which was against the present respondent. Learned AGP has invited the attention of this Court that the charges levelled against the respondent as well as the co-delinquent Mr. R.H. Gohil and has submitted that, in fact, the entire proceedings are on the premise that both the employees have not handed over the charge to each other and committed the irregularities and criminal prosecution was also initiated for the same. It is further submitted by the learned AGP that after comprehensive report, which runs into more than 200 pages, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as "proved" against both the delinquents, including the present respondent. He has further submitted that without any discussion of such evidence and findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Tribunal has cursorily set aside the penalty imposed upon him. Hence, the matter is required to be remanded back. 3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has already retired from service on 31.05.2009 and hence, at this stage, the matter may not be remanded. He has further submitted that the only issue which is confined to the inquiry proceedings is taking over the charge by the respondent from co-delinquent Mr. R.H. Gohil. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has precisely held that the respondent was to take over the charge as a Grass Depot Manager on 20.03.1992 but till 01.05.1992 he did not do so. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspects and rightly set aside the order of punishment. Therefore, the learned advocate has urged before this Court that at this stage, the matter may not be remanded back after passing of so many years. 4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 5. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspects and rightly set aside the order of punishment. Therefore, the learned advocate has urged before this Court that at this stage, the matter may not be remanded back after passing of so many years. 4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 5. This Court, while issuing Rule vide order dated 13.02.2007, passed following order: "1. Heard learned AGP Mr. LB Dabhi for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the respondent on caveat. 2. I have considered the order of the Tribunal and the findings at Page 16 in paragraph 5 which prima facie amounts to non application of mind and, therefore, question involved in this petition would require detailed examination. 3. Hence, Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph 6 (ii). Notice as to interim relief returnable on 9th March, 2007. 6. Thus, the judgment and order of the Tribunal has remain stayed since 2007. This Court has examined the findings of the Tribunal in the judgment and order dated 14.06.2006 passed in Appeal No. 196 of 2005 filed by the respondent challenging his punishment. It is noticed that the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 5 has recorded that it has gone through the inquiry report without discussing the evidence which was against the appellant and has set aside the punishment order. It is not in dispute that the Inquiry Officer has held a detailed departmental inquiry considering various documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and his report runs into more than 250 pages, after recording the defence of the respondent. The complicity of the respondent along with his colleague Mr. R.H. Gohil was established and accordingly, after giving an opportunity of hearing, the charges are proved. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority, after recording the same, imposed the penalty of recovery of loss caused by the respondent. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has very succinctly in Paragraph No. 5 of the Court cannot examine the findings of the inquiry officer while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India straightway in absence of any findings given by the Tribunal. 8. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has very succinctly in Paragraph No. 5 of the Court cannot examine the findings of the inquiry officer while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India straightway in absence of any findings given by the Tribunal. 8. Thus, the Tribunal was required to deal with charges and also should have discussed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the defence of the District Collector i.e. the present petitioner and the contentions raised by him. The Tribunal has only observed that it has gone through the inquiry report and considered the arguments on behalf of the appellant and respondent. However, the judgment is bereft of recording the contentions as well as the facts and the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Thus, the prima facie observations made by this Court while issuing Rule with regard to non-application of mind by the Tribunal stand vindicated. 9. In this view of the matter, since 2007 the judgment and order remains stayed, it would be appropriate that the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal so that the same may be decided afresh, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter. 10. This Court cannot examine the findings of the inquiry officer while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India straightway in absence of any findings given by the Tribunal. Thus, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. Since the matter of the year 2007, it is directed that the Tribunal shall decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 04 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. The judgment and order dated 14.06.2006 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No. 196 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. 12. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh, after hearing both the respective parties and pass a detailed order.