JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has challenged the order no. KKU-132001-2380-D-2 dated 31.03.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 compulsory retiring the petitioner from his existing post of Technical Officer, District Industrial Center, Palanpur. 3.1. Briefly stated that the petitioner herein joined the service in the department of Industry and Mines, on 16.03.1981, thereafter, petitioner was promoted as Technical Officer in the District Industrial Department on 16.09.1984. 3.2. On the morning of 26.01.2001, an earthquake of high magnitude of more than 7 on Richer Scale occurred, which shocked the whole of Gujarat State and more devastatingly entire Kutch District. The respondent-Government of Gujarat had prepared one package for rehabilitation, self-employment and revival of village and cottage industry, so as to give life to the dead cottage industry, more particularly, for the worst affected Talukas of Kutch District. For the implementation of the said scheme various teams were formed consisting of the officers working in the department of Industry and Mines. 3.3. The petitioner herein was entrusted with the work of the verification of the applications made by the earthquake victims under various schemes declared by the government. The petitioner was entrusted with the said work for Nakhtrana, Abdasa and Lakhpat taluka. The concerned department, received certain complaints with regard to the alleged irregularities committed in the implementation of the various schemes declared by the government for the earthquake victims. Pursuant to such complaints and certain news items, which were published in the vernacular newspaper, the Commissioner, Cottage and Village Industry and Mine Department directed the inquiry and the preliminary report was submitted by the In-charge Deputy Director (Bankabel), Village and Cottage Industry, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, which is duly produced at Annexure-B. 3.4. The petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.03.2002, upon the order passed by the Commissioner, Cottage and Village Industry, State of Gujarat, alleging irregularities in verification of application made by the earthquake victims. The petitioner herein was served with the charge-sheet and was asked to file his response/reply to the said charges levelled against him and further intend to oral investigation. The petitioner herein was served with the charge-sheet and was asked to file his response/reply to the said charges levelled against him and further intend to oral investigation. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why punishment should not be imposed in terms of Rule-6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplines and Appeal) Rules, 1971, if charges were proved against the petitioner herein. 3.5. The main charges levelled against the petitioner herein in the said charge-sheet was that the petitioner was working as I.P.O. in District Industrial Center, Palanpur and was assigned with the task of recommending loan to the earthquake victims. The main charges framed against the petitioner are that: (i) showing negligence in verifying the applications for loan made by the earthquake victims of Abdasa, Lakhpat and Nakhtrana taluka of Kutch district for self employment and reestablishment/development of trade and business, (ii) conducting unreasonable proceedings with a view to recommend the non genuine loan applications, (iii) Government was put to the financial burden of payment of subsidy to the tune of Rs.17.14 crores, (iv) by violating the provisions made in the resolution dated 13.03.2001 passed by the Industry and Mines Department, (v) showing lack of honesty and sincerity in performing the duties and committing breach of Rule-3(1) 1 and 3(2) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. In all, the petitioner was charge-sheeted with 19 charges. The charge-sheet constituted of 19 charges against the petitioner, which is duly produced at Annexure-D. 3.6. The petitioner replied to the said charges levelled against the petitioner on 24.02.2003. In the said reply, the petitioner denied oral inquiry, however, kept his rights reserved of cross-examination in case department considers any oral evidence from the other side. 3.7. The department of Industry and Mines, State of Gujarat felt the necessity of oral inquiry and in view thereof, appointed one Mr. P.D. Patel, as an inquiry officer to conduct the departmental proceedings against the petitioner herein. The statement of the petitioner came to be recorded under Rule-9(8) of the Gujarat Public Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. 3.8. The petitioner sought permission to represent his case with the assistance of retired government servant, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. P.D. Patel, as an inquiry officer to conduct the departmental proceedings against the petitioner herein. The statement of the petitioner came to be recorded under Rule-9(8) of the Gujarat Public Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. 3.8. The petitioner sought permission to represent his case with the assistance of retired government servant, which was duly accepted by the competent authority. The disciplinary authority nominated one Shri C.B. Parmar, Director, Village Technology Institution, Gandhinagar as Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the charge before the inquiry authority under Rule-9(5)(c) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. Further documents were added in the list of the documents vide letter dated 09.07.2003 by the department. The inquiry officer recorded the preliminary statement of the petitioner and thereafter inquiry was posted on 07.08.2003. The presenting officer presented his case on 02.09.2003. In the said submission, there was a reference of primary inquiry report, and therefore, the petitioner demanded the copy of the preliminary report. The same was duly served to the petitioner. The presenting officer also produced two witnesses: (i) Shri I.F. Fidelis, Director (Bankable) and (ii) Shri R.K. Adesara, Cooperative Officer (Bankable). The inquiry was further posted on 09.10.2003. The petitioner/ delinquent denied the allegations levelled against him and proposed to file written reply. The said submission is duly produced at Annexure-M. 3.9. The witnesses produced by the presenting officer were examined and were later cross-examined by the delinquent and thereafter, the evidence was closed. The presenting officer had submitted his written argument on 23.10.2003. The petitioner submitted his written argument on 07.11.2003. 3.10. The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 23.12.2003, which is duly produced at Annexure-Q, whereby, the charges mentioned at serial nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were partly proved, whereas, the charges mentioned at serial nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19 were fully proved and charges mentioned at serial nos. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 were not proved. The inquiry officer has held that the petitioner was found partly liable for the irregularities and consequent liability which arosed for the payment of subsidy to the tune of Rs.17.14 crore by the respondent-State. The inquiry officer held the petitioner partly liable for the charges levelled against him. 3.11. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 were not proved. The inquiry officer has held that the petitioner was found partly liable for the irregularities and consequent liability which arosed for the payment of subsidy to the tune of Rs.17.14 crore by the respondent-State. The inquiry officer held the petitioner partly liable for the charges levelled against him. 3.11. The Additional Secretary, Industry and Mines Department vide letter dated 31.05.2004 asked the petitioner herein to file reply against the report filed by the inquiry officer within one month, failing which, it would be considered to be accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply on 17.06.2004 against the findings of the inquiry officer in the report dated 23.12.2003, duly produced at Annexure-S. 3.12. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Additional Secretary, Industry and Mines Department and requested to reinstate the petitioner, since more than two years had elapsed from the date of his suspension and the final order upon inquiry report was yet to be passed. The petitioner herein had also prayed for subsistence allowance till 31.03.2003. The aforesaid was reiterated on 04.02.2005. 3.13. By the impugned order dated 31.03.2005, the petitioner was held guilty of charges levelled against him and the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the present petitioner by the Chief Secretary, Industry and Mines Department-respondent no. 2 herein. The Gujarat Public Service Commissioner vide letter dated 18.03.2005, confirmed the said decision, the said order is duly produced at Annexure-A. 3.14. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 31.03.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner herein has filed the present petition and has prayed for the following reliefs: “1. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order No. KKU-132001-2380-D.2 dated 31st March, 2005, passed by the respondent no. 2 compulsory retiring the petitioner from his existing post of Technical Officer, District Industrial Center, Palanpur in the interest of justice. 2. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order no. KKU-132001-2380-D.2 dated 31st March, 2005, passed by the respondent no. 2 compulsory retiring the petitioner from his existing post of Technical Officer, District Industrial Center, Palanpur pending admission and or final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice. 3. 2. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order no. KKU-132001-2380-D.2 dated 31st March, 2005, passed by the respondent no. 2 compulsory retiring the petitioner from his existing post of Technical Officer, District Industrial Center, Palanpur pending admission and or final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice. 3. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further orders as deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.” 4.1. Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner herein, at the outset submits that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner herein is very harsh and that the same be decreased proportionately. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has expired, pending the present petition and the petition is maintained through his legal heirs. 4.2. Reliance is placed on the written submissions (summary of the charges), that are placed on record. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the charges that are proved against the petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that, out of 19 charges levelled against the petitioner, serial nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were partly proved, whereas, charges mentioned at serial nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19 were fully proved and charges mentioned at serial nos. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 were not proved. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the reply that is filed by the petitioner herein, in the course of the departmental proceedings, is also not appropriately considered by the competent authority. 4.3. It is also submitted that, while the petitioner herein was imposed the impugned punishment, the similarly placed employee, has been granted lesser punishment and in view thereof, the imposition of the punishment of major penalty of compulsory retirement is not in consonance with the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that, charges levelled against the petitioner are denied and that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the loss that has occurred to the respondent-State to the tune of Rs.17.14 crores. It is submitted that the conclusion that is arrived at by the respondent – State authority is in dearth of the evidence of the inquiry officer to conclude that the petitioner was partly liable for the infirmities, as alleged in the charge-sheet. 4.4. Mr. It is submitted that the conclusion that is arrived at by the respondent – State authority is in dearth of the evidence of the inquiry officer to conclude that the petitioner was partly liable for the infirmities, as alleged in the charge-sheet. 4.4. Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate relied on the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 2965 of 2001, order dated 27.06.2016, in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Chandrakant Gokalbhai Patel, 2023 (4) GLH 375, LPA No. 1006 of 2006, order dated 22.11.2011 and in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074 . 5.1. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-State and submitted that the respondent authority had passed the impugned order, forming an opinion that most of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry were proved and considering the gravity of charges regarding financial misappropriation, which also came to be proved, and upon granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner at every stage of the inquiry. It is submitted that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent no. 2 herein, which is duly approved by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, requires no interference. 5.2. It is submitted that the petitioner was also paid the subsistence allowance every month and the difference of the amount during the suspension period was also paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had recommended the loan applications of the in-genuine persons which amounted to the financial burden of payment of subsidy of Rs.17.14 crores, violating the provision of the government resolution dated 13.03.2001 passed by the Government of Industry and Mines Department and had committed misconduct in breach of Rule-3(1)1 and 3(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. 5.3. It is submitted that all the relevant evidences against each of the charges were supplied by the respondent to the petitioner with the charge-sheet. It is submitted that, considering the charges levelled against the petitioner herein, petitioner’s integrity was proved to be doubtful and upon due consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission, it was desired not to continue the services of the petitioner and accordingly, petitioner was compulsorily retired, w.e.f. 31.03.2005. 5.4. Ms. It is submitted that, considering the charges levelled against the petitioner herein, petitioner’s integrity was proved to be doubtful and upon due consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission, it was desired not to continue the services of the petitioner and accordingly, petitioner was compulsorily retired, w.e.f. 31.03.2005. 5.4. Ms. Ashar, learned AGP has also placed reliance on the written submissions and submitted that the scope of the judicial review in disciplinary proceeding is limited and placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Subrata Nath vs. Union of India, 2022 Live Law (SC) 998 and in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, 2015 (2) SCC 610 . 5.5. It is submitted that, the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order under Rule-18 and Rule-22 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. It is submitted that, upon conducting the detailed inquiry, the impugned order of compulsory retirement is passed, therefore, it is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. 5.6. It is submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement is passed, considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, wherein, it is held that the petitioner is partly responsible for the loss occurred to the government by way of subsidy to the tune of Rs.17.14 crore and the petitioner’s integrity is held to be doubtful. To substantiate the aforesaid contentions, Ms. Ashar, learned AGP placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India, 2013 (6) SCC 602 and in the case of Hitesh Balvantrai Kothari vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 JX (Guj) 726. 5.7. It is submitted that the respondent authority has adhered to the principle laid down for compulsory retirement, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 . It is also submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for the compassionate pension as per Rule-77 to 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. 5.8. It is submitted that, the impugned order is passed upon following the cardinal principle of natural justice, upon granting opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself at every stage and cross-examine the witnesses. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 31.03.2005 is not punitive in nature. 6.1. 5.8. It is submitted that, the impugned order is passed upon following the cardinal principle of natural justice, upon granting opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself at every stage and cross-examine the witnesses. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 31.03.2005 is not punitive in nature. 6.1. In rejoinder, Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate reiterated the submission raised earlier and submitted that the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is harsh upon the deceased petitioner and that the same be modified appropriately. ANALYSIS: 7.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein joined the service in department with the respondent no. 2 on 16.03.1981. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Technical Officer in District Industrial department on 16.09.1984. On 26.01.2001, an earthquake occurred at Kutch district. The respondent no. 3 constituted various schemes to facilitate the earthquake victims on 15.03.2001. The respondent no. 3 entrusted the petitioner with the work of verifying applications made by the earthquake victims under Kutch District Self Employment Bankable Scheme declared by the Government for Nakhtrana, Abdasa and Lakhpat Taluka. The preliminary inquiry report came to be filed on 02.08.2001, alleging 19 charges against the petitioner, which duly produced at pg.27 to 65. The petitioner came to be suspended on 30.03.2002. The charge-sheet came to be given to the petitioner on 27.12.2002 for 19 charges, the said charge-sheet is duly produced at page-73 to 77. The petitioner herein has been duly paid the subsistence allowance and the differential amount thereof. The inquiry was conducted by the respondent authority in accordance with the rules and regulations, wherein, the petitioner herein has also presented himself, and whenever petitioner asked for the representative, the permission for the same was also granted. 7.2. Upon consideration of the charges levelled against the petitioner herein, out of 19 charges, charge nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were partly proved, whereas, charges mentioned at serial nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19 were fully proved and charges mentioned at serial nos. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 were not proved. 7.3. Upon perusal of the report dated 23.10.2003, charge nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are partly proved. 14, 15, 18 and 19 were fully proved and charges mentioned at serial nos. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 were not proved. 7.3. Upon perusal of the report dated 23.10.2003, charge nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are partly proved. The said charges, reads thus: “(A) Charge No. 2 At the time of recommending cases for trade and business, Shri Moriya has not at all considered as to whether there is any possibility of growth for such business in such a large scale in the respective area. Especially in the small villages, where there can never be any possibility of growth for such businesses in such large scale and any layman will consider such recommendation as without having any sense. For example, in Junachay village, which has a population of 334 persons (including 171 men and 163 women), recommendation for following number of applications have been made for the business employment in this village. (1) Grocery Shop 3 (2) Cattle Feed Trade 3 (3) Cloth Trade 5 (4) Hardware Trade 2 (5) Centering Work 5 (6) Cutlery Trade 2 (7) Ready made Cloth Trade 1 (8) Cement Block Work 1 (9) Provision Stores 1 (10) Electric Work 1 (11) Other Trades 1 Total 25 Out of the above, 22 applicants belong to same caste. In addition to this, such a scenario is prevailing in village Harod, Taluka Lakhpat also. It has been alleged that there are many more instances of such kind. In response to the charges levelled against Shri Moriya, he has stated in his defense statement that there was no guidelines for verifying as to whether there is any possibility of running any trade or cottage industry in the respective area before making recommendation. If such view is taken into consideration, there is very scanty possibility of running trades and earning employment in the villages of Nakhatrana, Abdasa and Lakhpat talukas, which have been assigned to me. Inspite of that, there was considerable population in this area before the earthqake and trades, cottage industries and animal husbandry occupations were being conducted as per the need. The 20 occupations, which are mentioned under this issue include trades of grocery, cloth, animal husbandry, hardware, cement block and ice candy. Inspite of that, there was considerable population in this area before the earthqake and trades, cottage industries and animal husbandry occupations were being conducted as per the need. The 20 occupations, which are mentioned under this issue include trades of grocery, cloth, animal husbandry, hardware, cement block and ice candy. There were scattered colonies of the families engaged in animal husbandry near Haroda village and they all were seen coming to Haroda village for purchase of cattle feed, grocery and clothes and they used to come to big centre like Haroda village for purchase of hardware material for building their huts, raw houses and pucca houses as per their requirements. Out of 20 cases, one case is pertaining to ice candy trade and looking to their applications mentioning therein that such trade can be done successfully in the summer season in these scattered areas. Therefore, to say that recommendation for loan in these 20 cases was not proper, is false. This issue does not stand false because in Para No. 1.5 (1) of the Resolution No. BhKP-2001-503-(1) Kh dated 13/03/2001 of the Industries and Mines Department of the Government, it has been clearly instructed that the work of District Industry Center is to be carried out as per the procedure prescribed for self employment under Cottage Industries, which has not been taken into consideration. Haroda village had a population of 309 persons, which included 168 men and 141 women, wherein 20 applications were recommendaded by Shri Moriya. But, looking to the population of this village, 20 cases have been recommended despite the fact that there was no possibility for the trades as mentioned therein. Moreover, it has been alleged in issue No. 2 that the recommendation for various 25 trades were made in Junachay village, which had a population of 334 persons. But Shri Moriya has not made any submission in his defense against this charge and hence, he has accepted this charge. The Preliminary Inquiry Officer made an inquiry into this and as per his inquiry report, only one shop of Ruskas and only one Pan shop were seen in Haroda village as against 20 applications which have been recommended for Haroda village, which is not viable. He has made recommendation wthout considering the viability. Hence, the entire responsibility lies with him and the charge No. 2 levelled against him stands completely proved. He has made recommendation wthout considering the viability. Hence, the entire responsibility lies with him and the charge No. 2 levelled against him stands completely proved. (B) Charge No. 3 Looking to the details of Annexure 2, it becomes clear that the charge has been levelled against Shri Moriya that he has inappropriately made recommendation of the application without considering merits and without visiting the respective village and place. In response to the charges levelled against him, Shri Moriya has stated in his defense statement that there is no substance in the charge No. 3 looking to the clarification made in issue No. 2 and he was not required to visit each and every village and place as a team leader. There were four members in his team and he was to verify the test case through random procedure. He has requested to take this aspect into consideration. This charge does nto stand false because Shri Moriya was invariably required to visit each every village and place. No instructions with regard to verification of test case through random procedure has been issued by the office. In cases of loss, he was to make recommendation only after visiting the place. Inspite of that, Shri Moriya has inappropriately made recommendation of the applications without considering merits and without visiting the respective village and place. Looking to this, the allegation levelled in Charge No. 3 stands completely proved. Not only that, in the preface of the defense statement, Shri Moriya has stated that he had made decisions by going through details of devastation of the affected people and applicants personally. In this regard, he has stated to have made verification of random test case in respect of this issue and looking to which the allegations made in charge No. 3 stand completely proved. (C) Charge No. 5 There are signature of Shri S.J. Moriya as team leader and recommender in all the cases, which also includes the estimate of losses meaning thereby that the estimated amount of loss has been decided by Shri Moriya or he has certified the same. There is no other proof in this regard. In almost all the cases, there is no signature as team member doing verification and Shri Moriya has put his signature in recommendation letter and certificate. There is no other proof in this regard. In almost all the cases, there is no signature as team member doing verification and Shri Moriya has put his signature in recommendation letter and certificate. On the basis of it, there is a reason to believe that instead of getting the verification of the application through any other member done, Shri Moriya has himself decided the estimates of losses in the all cases and issued certificate of losses and has made recommendation. For example: Recommendation in 3 separate applications of Shri Vijay Gaangji Mistry (1) Departmental Store Rs. 90,000/- (2) General Store Rs. 90,000/- (3) Beauty Parlour Rs. 90,000/- Looking to the above, Shri Moriya has done the work, which lacks honesty and the same is alleged against him. In view of the allegations made against Shri Moriya, he has stated in his defense statement that out of the applications which have been enclosed in evidece statement, signature of the member of the team is there in all the cases except the application of Vijay G. Mistry. Out of all the applications which have been mentioned, two applications are of Vijay G. Mistry and the third application is of Vijayaben G. Mistry. Of these three applications, only two applications have been included in the evidence statement. The evidence of third application has not been included in evidence Statement. Thus, by including selective documents in the evidence, the issue has been raised without mentioning as to in how many cases, team members have made recommendation and in how many cases he had made recommendation and thus, it is without any substance. In addition to team members, as the other members of team were busy in other work, he had personally made recommendation without getting the same checked through team leaders in all the applications. He has made estimate of losses himself and issued certificate of losses and this issue is also false. Two applications are of Shri Vijay G. Mistry and the third application is of Vijayaben G. Mistry. Evidences of all these three cases have been given with chargesheet. In all these three applications, Shri Moriya has personally made inspection of the place and filled up part 1 and 2 of the place inspection report and he has issued certificate for all these three applications. Evidences of all these three cases have been given with chargesheet. In all these three applications, Shri Moriya has personally made inspection of the place and filled up part 1 and 2 of the place inspection report and he has issued certificate for all these three applications. Inspite of having knowledge that any one and same person could have made the application, he had made recommendation in two application of one person for separate business. Fromt this, it is proved that he has issued certificate of losses without visiting the place. In the third application ie. in Vijayaben Mistry’s application, he has personally visited the place and assessed the loss and issued certificate of loss and made recommendation. In this case, no case of selection is there. It is only for giving example. Thus, the entire responsibility lies with Shri Moriya and the allegations made in Charge No. 5 stand completely proved. This charge was levelled as an exemplary case, but no verification of the applications in 43 cases have been done through any employee/officer. Inspite of that, such direct recommendations have been made, which is a grave lapse and the charge stands completely proved. (D) Charge No. 6 In several cases, Shri Meriya has also made recommendation for applications of those persons, who are not living in the village e.g. Thakkar Kailejkumar Vitthaldas, whos address is Asha Krupa, Plot No. 150/B, Shri Ram Society, Rajkot, but he has filled application from Pandhro, Taluka Lakhpat. This application has also been recommended by Shri Moriya, which shows grave negligence in duty on the part of Shri Moriya. Such is the allegation against him. In response to the charge levelled against him, Shri Moriya has stated in his defense statement that there was no guideline or rule to verify Ration Card at the time of checking the application. Moreover, such a situation had arisen wherein the documents of the houses, ration card etc. were destroyed and no Talati or Panchayat Mantri were available in the village The application form of Kailejkumar has been produced as evidence in the schedule and the verification form of the application has also been produced, in which the officer of co-operative department Shri Parmar has made assessment of the loss and certified the same. were destroyed and no Talati or Panchayat Mantri were available in the village The application form of Kailejkumar has been produced as evidence in the schedule and the verification form of the application has also been produced, in which the officer of co-operative department Shri Parmar has made assessment of the loss and certified the same. In addition to it, one meter reading bill of Gujarat Electricity Board has also been produced, which is in the name of father of Thakkar Kailejkumar i.e.. Vitthaldas Laxmidas. However, there wasn’t any guideline to recommend for loan after verifying the bill and on the basis the ground situation, details of loss and other details shown in the application, he has made recommendation after assessing the loss and making verification as a team leader. Moreover, many persons had migrated after the earthquake and they used to often come to village for rehabilitation. There was no instruction at the time of making verification to verify as to whether that person continuously lives in village before and after earthquake. Talati, Panchayat Mantri or other officers were not available in the village after the earthquake. In such a situation, the allegations that he has committed negligence in performing duty by making recommendation after verification done by team members, is false. This charge does not stand false because the photocopy of the ration card is enclosed with the application of Shri Kailejkumar V. Thakkar, in which it is clear that he was residing in Rajkot. Therefore, this case is not fabricated but it is a fact. The details of evidence to be produced along with application form for loan subsidy ihas been printed therein and therfore, reccomendation was to be made by considering this aspect and guidelines is clearly laid down in the provisions 1.5 (1) and 1.2 (2) of the Resolution dated 13/03/2001 of Industries and Mines Department of the Government and therefore, responsibility lies with the team leader and this charge stands completely proved. This charge has been levelled as an exemplary case but inspite of the fact that the photocopy of ration card produced in 173 cases did not belong to Kachchh district, the recommendation has been made without taking prcision, which is a grave lapse and the charge stands completely proved. This charge has been levelled as an exemplary case but inspite of the fact that the photocopy of ration card produced in 173 cases did not belong to Kachchh district, the recommendation has been made without taking prcision, which is a grave lapse and the charge stands completely proved. (E) Charge No. 7 In several cases, it has been alleged that applications of more than one persons of the same family have been recommended and recommendations have been made without verifying as to whether all the persons belong to separate families or not? For example, recommendation for the application of 3 members of the same family: S. No. Name Occupation Recommendation 1 Thakkar Motiram Bhavanji Grocery Rs. 95,000 2 Thakkar Kalavati Motiram Cattle Feed trade Rs. 90,000 3 Thakkar Dilipkumar Motiram Grain Ruskas Rs. 90,000 In response to the charge levelled against him, Shri Moriya has stated in his defense statement that as the villages have scanty sources of the income, there is no reason to disbelieve that the adult members of the family try to earn their livelihood, in which father & son do separate occupations and daughter & mother are engaged in cattle feed trade. In some areas of Kachchh, only women do occupation. Looking to this, when such application is received, only because the application belongs to members of same family, cannot be avoided to be recommended. There was no guideline that only the application of the head of the family should be recommended instead of considering applications of different members of the family. Looking to this clarification, this issue has no substance and the same has been concocted. This charge has not been concocted because in all these three applications, first applicant is father, second applicant is wife and third applicant is son. All the three have made applications for different businesses. In this scheme, the main objective is to provide reemployment for the affected people. Considering this aspect, all these three members of one family have not filled application form for assessment and verification in part 1-2, but certificates have been issued to them without procedure. Therefore, there is no substance found in such representation of Shri Moriya, who has worked in District Industries Centre for the last around 20 years and who is completely aware of this scheme. Therefore, there is no substance found in such representation of Shri Moriya, who has worked in District Industries Centre for the last around 20 years and who is completely aware of this scheme. Thus, the entire responsibility lies with him and the allegations levelled in Charge No. 7 stands completely proved. This charge has been levelled as an exemplary case, but Shri Moriya has recommended loan applications of different members of same family in 213 cases, which is grave lapse and the charge stands completely proved. (F) Charge No. 8 It has been alleged that there is no signature of the person, in whose name applications are made. On the contrary, there is signature of a person with identical name. Similarly there is signature of person with identical name in the declaration. For example: Shri Vijesh Vitthaldas Thakkar has made application for trade of cold drink shop and ice factory, whereas signature of one R.V. Thakkar is there in the application and declaration. In response to the charge levelled against him, Shri Moriya has stated in his defense statement that issue No. 10 is mentioned in the evidence statement and case papers of Vijesh Vitthaldas Thakkar have been enclosed as an example. The photocopy of the application has been enclosed in evidence statement and in schedule form. In this case, the assessment of loss and the verification of case has been done by member Shri Parmar. On the caption of the application form, the name of Vijesh Vitthaldas Thakkar is there. But, it is true that shri Thakkar has put his signature in the application and affidavit. He does not remember of the details of the case. But, if Shri V.K.Thakkar is produced as a witness, it can be known as to whether he has made signature by his pet name? The delinquent has issued certificate on the basis of the applicant’s name as per schedule and the name of the representative of the unit on the second page of the application verification form and delinquent has requested to accept this clarification. This clarification cannot be accepted because instead of his own signature, Mr. Vijesh Vitthaldas Thakkar has made signature as R.V. Thakkar in the application form for cold drink shop occupation. In the declaration and affidavit also, there is no signature of Vijesh Vittaldas Thakkar, instead of that there is signature of R.V. Thakkar. This clarification cannot be accepted because instead of his own signature, Mr. Vijesh Vitthaldas Thakkar has made signature as R.V. Thakkar in the application form for cold drink shop occupation. In the declaration and affidavit also, there is no signature of Vijesh Vittaldas Thakkar, instead of that there is signature of R.V. Thakkar. Moreover, name of vijesh Vitthaldas Thakkar is not there in the photocopy of the ration card of Vitthaldas Laxmidas. Thus, no verification has been done in the important document and certificate has been issued on the basis of the name of the representative of the unit on the second page of the verification form, which cannot be accepted. Thus, the certificate has been issued without verifying the important facts and evidences, which is a grave lapse and the entire responsibility lies with him as a team leader. The charge stands completely proved. This charge has been levelled as an exemplary case, but Shri Moriya has made recommendation inspite of the fact that there was no signature of the applicant in 358 cases. In addition to this, inspite of the fact that there was no signature of the applicant in the declaration form in 103 cases, recommendation for loan has been made. Despite the fact that the declaration is not enclosed, recommendations have been made in 114 cases, which are grave lapses and the charge stands completely proved. (G) Charge No. 9 Such charge is levelled that though it is clearly mentioned in the produced photocopy of the Ration Card that the name of the applicant has been deleted, recommendation of such applicant has been made. For Example: Application has been made in the name of Hansaben Vittaldas Thakkar, whereas signature is made in the application form as ‘H. K. Thakkar’. Looking to the name of the Hansaben in Ration Card, the name has been deleted on 29/06/2000. Moreover, this ration card has also been deleted from Lakhpat Taluka. With regard to charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, it has been stated in his statement of defense that there was no condition or guideline that while examining the application, the ration card should be verified. The father’s name of Hansaben Vitthaldas is ‘Vitthaldas Thakkar’ and after her marriage, it is possible that her name may have been deleted from the ration card of her father. Moriya, it has been stated in his statement of defense that there was no condition or guideline that while examining the application, the ration card should be verified. The father’s name of Hansaben Vitthaldas is ‘Vitthaldas Thakkar’ and after her marriage, it is possible that her name may have been deleted from the ration card of her father. Hansaben has made signature in the application form as ‘H. K. Thakkar’, which has been made on the basis of her husband’s name; however, as there is provision to mention the name of father in the application form, name of Vitthaldas Laxmidas Thakkar has been mentioned against the father’s name, which is correct. It is submitted that considering this clarification, there is no substance in this issue and it is not proved that any error has been committed in this case. It is proved that error has been committed in this case because as mentioned in Para 1.2(2) of the Resolution dated 13/3/2001 of the Government, the applicant should be a resident of the area affected by earth quake and he/she should be involved in occupation within this area. Despite this, without taking into consideration that though in the photocopy of ration card attached with the application of applicant Hansaben Vitthaldas Thakkar, her name had been deleted on 29/06/2000, the Team Leader Mr. Moriya had recommended the application though he was responsible. Further, though instructions were issued to conduct proceedings as laid down in Para 1.5(1) of the Resolution dated 13/03/2001, such clarification is given that there was no condition or guideline to verify the ration card at the time of examining the application; which has no substance. Thus, it is proved that he has shown negligence and carelessness towards the duty entrusted to him and this charge is amply proved. This charge was mentioned as an example incident. However, Mr. Moriya has recommended 180 cases wherein the name of the applicant was not included in the ration card photocopy attached with the application and he has even made recommendation in 235 cases, wherein though copy of ration card was not submitted. This is a serious error and therefore the charge is completely proved. (H) Charge No. 10 Recommendation is made twice in two applications of one same person. This is a serious error and therefore the charge is completely proved. (H) Charge No. 10 Recommendation is made twice in two applications of one same person. For Example: Such charge is levelled that applications were made twice for construction business in the name of Jadeda Dushyantsinh Khengarji, village Naliya, Taluka Abdasa and different amounts at both the occasions (Rs. 90,000/- in one application and Rs. 1,20,000/- in the second application) were recommended. With regard to this charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, it is mentioned in his statement of defense that it is true that two certificates were issued to Jadeja Dushyantsinh Khengarji. In the Certificate issued vide Sr. No. 2309, it is mentioned that occupation is construction and this application has been examined by Cooperative Auditor Mr. P.B. Prajapati. Whereas, the second certificate has been issued vide Sr. No. 2570, which is given for occupation of construction centering. This application was also examined by Cooperative Auditor Mr. P.B. Prajapati. Thus as one person was involved in two different occupations, two separate certificates are issued. Moreover, the Auditor who made verification of the place and accessed the loss, should have noticed that the two applications have been made by the same person. But looking to the outward number of both the certificates, it found that more than 251 applications have been certified on the same date of 02/06/2001. Therefore, such fact could not be noticed while issuing certificate and as Auditor had made recommendation on both the applications after verification and as separate occupation was mentioned in both the applications, it is true that recommendation was made twice. The construction centering applications are not enclosed in the evidence schedule regarding photograph. Therefore, due to lack of evidence, clarification in this regarding could not be given. The Preliminary Inquiry Officer has repeated the same point against S. No. 10 and 17. Thus, there is possibility of making such mistake at the time of preliminary verification and if this can happen in verification of 19 cases, then when more than 250 applications are disposed of in a day, the issue could not be noticed which should have been actually found out by the Auditor who examined the application. It is requested to take into consideration that there is possibility that the officer issuing certificate may not notice such fact. This clarification is not acceptable because the clarification given by Mr. It is requested to take into consideration that there is possibility that the officer issuing certificate may not notice such fact. This clarification is not acceptable because the clarification given by Mr. Moriya in the statement of defence, he has admitted that recommendation was made twice in two applications of one same applicant. Mr. P.B. Prajapati has examined both the applications. In this examination report also, Team Leader Mr. Moriya has made signature. It means that Mr. Moriya and Mr. Prajapati have carried out spot inspection together. Considering the same, though recommendation cannot be made twice for the same applicant, he has violated the rules of the government. Therefore, Mr. P.B. Prajapati and Mr. Moriya as team leader are totally responsible. Moreover, as stated in his clarification, same issue has been repeated in Point No. 10 and 17. This fact is not true. As different facts are involved in this issue, separate charge has been framed. It is stated that as more than 250 applications were disposed of in a single day, such error is possible. In this regard, it is stated that Mr. Moriya has clearly admitted that he has disposed of more than 250 applications in one day. The disposal is more than prescribed disposal of 50 to 60 applications per month i.e. it is exorbitant and this indicates that he has disposed of the applications without examination and spot inspection intentionally. Thus, the reply given in the statement of defense is not acceptable and the charge is proved. This charge was mentioned as an example case, but Mr. Moriya has made recommendation in both the applications in 14 cases wherein two applications of same applicant are received. This is a serious issue and the charge is proved in toto. (I) Charge No. 12 Such charge is levelled that in some cases recommendation is made even in totally blank application form bearing only the signature of the applicant. For Example: Sathwara Vishram Harji-Village Pandhro, Taluka-Lakhpat. With regard to this charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, he has mentioned in his statement of defense that details have been provided at Point No. 14 in Evidence Schedule wherein there is photocopy of application form bearing signature of Vishram Harji. For Example: Sathwara Vishram Harji-Village Pandhro, Taluka-Lakhpat. With regard to this charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, he has mentioned in his statement of defense that details have been provided at Point No. 14 in Evidence Schedule wherein there is photocopy of application form bearing signature of Vishram Harji. The applications were to be submitted in duplicate and hence, it is possible that all the particulars of the application may be written in the second copy of application and a copy of which may not have been supplied to me. Therefore, after the copies of all the applications including the original application are provided to me and after original case paper is shown, I will be able to give clarification in this regard. This charge is based on insufficient evidences and photocopy enclosed in the schedule of evidence does not appear to be complete and genuine. Therefore, it is requested to drop this charge. The defense taken by Mr. Moroya is not acceptable and the charge cannot be dropped because looking to the application of the applicant, the form is blank and the applicant has only made signature. Despite this, Team Leader Mr. Moriya has made recommendation of Rs. 1,00,000/- by issuing certificate. Thus, the charge is totally proved. This charge was mentioned as an example. But Mr. Moriya has made recommendation in as many as 1941 cases though the application forms were not complete. This is a serious issue and the charge is proved in toto. (J) Charge No. 13 Such charge is levelled that recommendation is made in the applications of the applicants who are even more than 75 years old or less than 18 years old. For Example: (a) Darji Kalpesh Premjibhai, Village-Kothara, Occupation - Business, Date of Birth: 02/09/83-recommendation is made though 18 years not completed. (b) Khatri Ishaq Ismael, Occupation-Carpenter, Naliya - recommendation is made even though he is 75 years old. With regard to charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, it is stated in his statement of defense that on seeing the application of Darji Kalpesh Premjibhai, it is found that he has mentioned date of birth as 02/09/83 and age 18 years is mentioned in the application form in the date of application. The verification form regarding the examination of this application is enclosed with the evidence. Moriya, it is stated in his statement of defense that on seeing the application of Darji Kalpesh Premjibhai, it is found that he has mentioned date of birth as 02/09/83 and age 18 years is mentioned in the application form in the date of application. The verification form regarding the examination of this application is enclosed with the evidence. But looking to the details, it appears that one of the team member may have examined the application and submitted the same to me and looking to the date of birth, as 18th year had commenced, this application was recommended. In second case (b) it is mentioned that recommendation is made though the age of Khatri Ishaq Isamel was 75 years. In this regard it is clarified that there was no rule or guideline that applications of applicants of more than 75 years age having strong physic and being involved in the occupation, should not be recommended. Hence, such defense is taken that as no maximum age was decided in this scheme, no irregularity or violation of rule has been committed in recommendation of this application. This point is not wrong because the date of birth of applicant Mr. Darji Kalpesh Premjibhai is 2/9/1983 and his 18 years would be completed on 09/09/2001. But Mr. Moriya has made recommendation on 02/06/2001 i.e. three months before completing 18 years, which is a violation of the Para 1-1.2(1) of the Resolution Dated 13/03/2001 of the Government stating that the age should be more than 18 years. The clarification is not acceptable that as 18th year had commenced, the recommendation was made and hence, the charge is proved. Further, though the age of Khatri Ishaq Ismael was 75 years, Team Leader Mr. Moriya recommended and issued certificate for the application of Rs. 85,000/-. In this regard, he has mentioned in the statement of defense that there was no rule or guideline that applications of such applicants should not be recommended; however, such defense is not acceptable because it is mentioned in Para 1.5(1) of the Resolution dated 13/03/2001 of the Government that work shall be carried as per procedure prescribed for self employment. In this regard, he has mentioned in the statement of defense that there was no rule or guideline that applications of such applicants should not be recommended; however, such defense is not acceptable because it is mentioned in Para 1.5(1) of the Resolution dated 13/03/2001 of the Government that work shall be carried as per procedure prescribed for self employment. In this regard, as per the provisions of Para-2 of Resolution No. SAI/1099/2235/Kh, dated 05/03/2001, though provision is made that this scheme shall be applicable to persons having age between 18 to 50 years, the conditions of the resolution have been violated and recommendation is made. Therefore, the charge is completely proved. This instance is mentioned as an for example about the charge. But Mr. Moriya has made recommendation in 211 cases wherein the age of the applicant was less than 18 years. This is a serious issue and the charge is totally proved. 7.4. It is apposite to deal with the charges which were proved/fully proved, i.e. charges at serial nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19. The said charges, reads thus: (A) Charge No. 14 Such charge is levelled that instead of making recommendation for the occupation for which loan is sought by the applicant, recommendation to the bank is made for some other occupation. For Example: Mr. Darji Vinodkumar Manji Village: Kothara – The loan was sought for cloth business, whereas recommendation was made for wholesale business of grains. This same applicant made another application for cloth business, wherein recommendation is made for cloth business. With regard to this charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, it is stated in the statement of defense that only copy of application of schedule is provided in the documents in this regard. The document of certificate issued by the team member of the concerned team regarding verification of the application is not enclosed. Therefore, without perusal of the whole document, clarification in this regard cannot be given and it is submitted that as the issue raised here lacks corroboration of evidences, it should be dropped. This charge cannot be dropped because looking to the evidences enclosed with the application, it is found that instead of business for which loan is demanded, recommendation is made for whole sale business of grains and certificate is issued accordingly. This charge cannot be dropped because looking to the evidences enclosed with the application, it is found that instead of business for which loan is demanded, recommendation is made for whole sale business of grains and certificate is issued accordingly. Moreover, application of this same applicant was recommended for cloth business and two separate certificates have been issued to the same applicant. Thus, there is violation of instructions issued vide Resolution dated 13/3/2001 by the Government. Thus, the charge is totally proved. This is a case mentioned as an example. But Mr. Moriya has made recommendation in 25 cases for some other business than the purpose for which loan was demanded by the applicant. This is a serious issue and the charge is proved totally. (B) Charge No. 15 Such charge is levelled that signature of the applicant is not obtained in the application form. For Example: Pravinkumar B. Vaghela, Village-Pandhro, Application No. 15. With regard to charge levelled against Mr. Moriya, it is mentioned in his statement of defense that this issue is similar no Point No. 12. Therefore, application bearing signature of this applicant is available in the case papers and there is no signature of the applicant in other application. But, photograph and other particulars are provided in the application form. Considering the same, it is found that this issue is framed by attaching insufficient and selected documents in the evidence schedule. As there is no substance therein, it is requested to drop the same. This charge cannot be dropped because, the application form does not bear signature of the applicant. Moreover, Mr. Moriya has issued certificate directly without assessment and verification of loss. While recommending the application, the entire application and material documents attached therewith should be verified in detail; which has not been done by him. Thus, the clarification is not acceptable that application bearing signature of the applicant is available in the case paper and there is no signature in the second application. Therefore, it is found that Mr. Moriya has shown negligence towards the duty and committed gross mistake and the charge is completely proved. This instance is mentioned as an example for the above charge; however, Mr. Moriya has made recommendation in 358 cases wherein the signature of the applicant is not available. This is a serious issue and the charge is totally proved. Moriya has shown negligence towards the duty and committed gross mistake and the charge is completely proved. This instance is mentioned as an example for the above charge; however, Mr. Moriya has made recommendation in 358 cases wherein the signature of the applicant is not available. This is a serious issue and the charge is totally proved. (C) Charge No. 18 Such charge is levelled that two separate amounts of loss assessment are shown in two different applications having two different inward numbers in case of the same applicant. For Example: Bharat Surji Surar, Village-Nakhatrana-loss of Rs. 1,10,000/- is shown in the application no. 240, whereas 0.60 lakh is mentioned in second application. With regard to the charges levelled against Mr. Moriya, he has stated in his statement of defense that Point No. 17 is similar to Point No. 10 and Point No. 18 is similar to Point No. 11 and both these points are repeated. Thus, it is submitted it is not required to give clarification again for repeated point. This charge is not false just because it is mentioned in the statement of defense that as Point No. 18 is similar to Point No. 11 and both these points are repeated and hence, clarification is not required to be given second time. This is not acceptable. In case of Point No. 11, charge has been levelled about having two different photographs in two separate applications of the same person. Whereas, such charge is levelled in Point No. 18 that two different amounts of loss assessment are shown in two separate applications of loss amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- and both these charges are totally proved. This instance has been mentioned as an example regarding this charge. However, as two applications of the same applicant having similar particulars were received in 3 instances and on verification it is found that assessment of loss is different and such kind of recommendation is done. This is a serious issue and the charge is completely proved. (D) Charge No. 19 Such charge is levelled that the demand of the applicant was to avail loan from certain bank, whereas, another bank is recommended without taking into consideration the demand of the applicant and in violation of service area approach. This is a serious issue and the charge is completely proved. (D) Charge No. 19 Such charge is levelled that the demand of the applicant was to avail loan from certain bank, whereas, another bank is recommended without taking into consideration the demand of the applicant and in violation of service area approach. For Example: Thakor Manguben Nanji-The applicant has mentioned to send her applicant to Kachchh Gramin Bank, whereas recommendation is made for Kachchh District Cooperative Bank. With regard to this charge levelled against him, Mr. Moriya has submitted in his statement of defense that as Kutchchh Gramin Bank was a subsidiary bank of nationalized Dena bank, it was not possible to get loan from that bank and therefore, he made recommendation of Kachchh District Cooperative Bank and the applicant also admitted that the said bank was feasible. Hence, considering the same, there is no substance in this point and it is requested to drop this charge by accepting the clarification. This charge is not false because Part 1 and 2 of loss assessment form were blank and despite the same, recommendation was made. Therefore, this charge is completely proved. This instance is mentioned as an example for the charge, but in 257 cases Mr. Moriya has made recommendation for bank other than the demand though the applicant had made demand for loan from service area bank. This is a serious issue and the charge is totally proved. 7.5. Upon perusal of the aforesaid charges as having been proved and partly proved by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority held the charges mentioned at serial nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are partly proved, whereas, the charges mentioned at serial nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19 are fully proved and charges mentioned at serial nos. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 are not proved. Looking to the same, following emerge: (A) At the time of recommending cases for trade and business, petitioner herein has not at all considered as to whether there is any possibility of growth for such business in such a large scale in the respective area. The said charge is held to be proved, the same having been instructed that the work of District Industry Center is to be carried out as per the procedure prescribed for self employment under Cottage Industries, which has not been taken into consideration. The said charge is held to be proved, the same having been instructed that the work of District Industry Center is to be carried out as per the procedure prescribed for self employment under Cottage Industries, which has not been taken into consideration. Haroda village had a population of 309 persons, which included 168 men and 141 women, wherein 20 applications were recommended by the petitioner. But, looking to the population of this village, 20 cases have been recommended despite the fact that there was no possibility for the trades as mentioned therein. Moreover, it has been alleged in issue No. 2 that the recommendation for various 25 trades were made in Junachay village, which had a population of 334 persons. But petitioner has not made any submission in his defense against this charge and hence, he has accepted this charge. (B) It is proved that the petitioner inappropriately made recommendation of the applications without considering merits and without visiting the respective village and place. It is proved that petitioner invariably required to visit each every village and place. No instructions with regard to verification of test case through random procedure has been issued by the office. Petitioner have made verification of random test case in respect of this issue and looking to which the allegations made in charge No. 3 stand completely proved. (C) There are signature of petitioner as team leader and recommender in all the cases, which also includes the estimate of losses meaning thereby that the estimated amount of loss has been decided by petitioner or he has certified the same. It is proved that the recommendation in 3 separate applications of Shri Vijay Gaangji Mistry, which shows the petitioner has done the work, which lacks of honesty. From this, it is proved that he has issued certificate of losses without visiting the place. In the third application i.e. in Vijayaben Mistry’s application, he has personally visited the place and assessed the loss and issued certificate of loss and made recommendation. In this case, no case of selection is there. Thus, the entire responsibility lies with the petitioner and the allegations made in Charge No. 5 stand completely proved. (D) In several cases, petitioner has also made recommendation for applications of those persons, who are not living in the village. In this case, no case of selection is there. Thus, the entire responsibility lies with the petitioner and the allegations made in Charge No. 5 stand completely proved. (D) In several cases, petitioner has also made recommendation for applications of those persons, who are not living in the village. The photocopy of the ration card is enclosed with the application of Shri Kailejkumar V. Thakkar, wherein, he was residing in Rajkot. The details of evidence to be produced along with application form for loan subsidy has been printed therein and therefore, recommendation was to be made by considering this aspect and guidelines is clearly laid down in the provisions 1.5 (1) and 1.2 (2) of the Resolution dated 13/03/2001 of Industries and Mines Department of the Government and therefore, responsibility lies with the team leader and this charge stands completely proved. (E) In several cases, it has been alleged that applications of more than one persons of the same family have been recommended and recommendations have been made without verifying as to whether all the persons belong to separate families or not? For example, recommendation for the application of 3 members of the same family. All these applications, first applicant is father, second applicant is wife and third applicant is son. All the three have made applications for different businesses. In this scheme, the main objective is to provide re-employment for the affected people. Considering this aspect, all these three members of one family have not filled application form for assessment and verification in part 1-2, but certificates have been issued to them without procedure. Therefore, there is held to be no substance found in such representation of petitioner, who worked in District Industries Centre for the last around 20 years and who is completely aware of this scheme. Thus, the entire responsibility lies with him and the allegations levelled in Charge No. 7 stand completely proved. (F) It has been alleged that there is no signature of the person, in whose name applications are made. On the contrary, there is signature of a person with identical name. Similarly there is signature of person with identical name in the declaration. Thus, the certificate has been issued without verifying the important facts and evidences, which is a grave lapse and the entire responsibility lies with him as a team leader. The charge stand completely proved. On the contrary, there is signature of a person with identical name. Similarly there is signature of person with identical name in the declaration. Thus, the certificate has been issued without verifying the important facts and evidences, which is a grave lapse and the entire responsibility lies with him as a team leader. The charge stand completely proved. The charge is proved, wherein, the petitioner made recommendation inspite of the fact that there was no signature of the applicant in 358 cases. In addition to this, inspite of the fact that there was no signature of the applicant in the declaration form in 103 cases, recommendation for loan has been made. Despite the fact that the declaration is not enclosed, recommendations have been made in 114 cases, which are grave lapses and the charge stands completely proved. This charge has been levelled as an exemplary case, but petitioner has recommended loan applications of different members of same family in 213 cases, which is grave lapse and the charge stands completely proved. (G) It is clearly mentioned in the produced photocopy of the Ration Card that the name of the applicant has been deleted, recommendation of such applicant has been made. It is proved that error has been committed in this case because as mentioned in Para 1.2(2) of the Resolution dated 13/3/2001 of the Government, the applicant should be a resident of the area affected by earth quake and he/she should be involved in occupation within this area. Despite this, without taking into consideration that though in the photocopy of ration card attached with the application of applicant Hansaben Vitthaldas Thakkar, her name had been deleted on 29/06/2000, the Team Leader-petitioner had recommended the application though he was responsible. Further, though instructions were issued to conduct proceedings as laid down in Para 1.5(1) of the Resolution dated 13/03/2001, such clarification is given that there was no condition or guideline to verify the ration card at the time of examining the application; which has no substance. Thus, it is proved that he has shown negligence and carelessness towards the duty entrusted to him and this charge is amply proved. This charge was mentioned as an example incident. Thus, it is proved that he has shown negligence and carelessness towards the duty entrusted to him and this charge is amply proved. This charge was mentioned as an example incident. However, petitioner recommended 180 cases wherein the name of the applicant was not included in the ration card photocopy attached with the application and he has even made recommendation in 235 cases, wherein though copy of ration card was not submitted. The said charge is held to be proved. (H) Recommendation is made twice in two applications of one same person. The petitioner in the statement of defence, he admitted that recommendation was made twice in two applications of one same applicant. The charge was mentioned as an example case, but petitioner made recommendation in both the applications in 14 cases wherein two applications of same applicant are received. This is a serious issue and the charge is proved. (I) In some cases recommendation is made even in totally blank application form bearing only the signature of the applicant. The form is blank and the applicant has only put signature. Despite this, Team Leader-petitioner made recommendation of Rs. 1,00,000/- by issuing certificate. The charge held is totally proved. The recommendation in as many as 1941 cases though the application forms were not complete. (J) The recommendation is made in the applications of the applicants who are even more than 75 years old or less than 18 years old. But petitioner made recommendation on 02/06/2001 i.e. three months before completing 18 years, which is a violation of the Para 1-1.2(1) of the Resolution Dated 13/03/2001 of the Government stating that the age should be more than 18 years. As per the provisions of Para-2 of Resolution No. SAI/1099/2235/Kh, dated 05/03/2001, though provision is made that this scheme shall be applicable to persons having age between 18 to 50 years, the conditions of the resolution have been violated and recommendation is made. Therefore, the charge is held to be completely proved. The petitioner made recommendation in 211 cases wherein the age of the applicant was less than 18 years. (K) Instead of making recommendation for the occupation for which loan is sought by the applicant, recommendation to the bank is made for some other occupation. There is violation of instructions issued vide Resolution dated 13/3/2001 by the Government. The petitioner made recommendation in 211 cases wherein the age of the applicant was less than 18 years. (K) Instead of making recommendation for the occupation for which loan is sought by the applicant, recommendation to the bank is made for some other occupation. There is violation of instructions issued vide Resolution dated 13/3/2001 by the Government. The petitioner has made recommendation in 25 cases for some other business than the purpose for which loan was demanded by the applicant. (L) The signature of the applicant is not obtained in the application form. The petitioner has made recommendation in 358 cases wherein the signature of the applicants are not available. (M) Two separate amounts of loss assessment are shown in two different applications having two different inward numbers in case of the same applicant. On verification it is found that assessment of loss is different and such kind of recommendation is done. (N) The demand of the applicant was to avail loan from certain bank, whereas, another bank is recommended without taking into consideration the demand of the applicant and in violation of service area approach. In 257 cases, petitioner has made recommendation for bank other than the demand though the applicant had made demand for loan from service area bank. 7.6. Though it is contended that two charges are repeated, the nature of the allegation is such that, it has to be considered strictly. The petitioner herein was required to act in accordance with the work which was allotted to him, of verifying the applications, if there was anomaly, in verifying the applications, undoubtedly the petitioner was required to be strict and required to be held guilty. 8. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, are not applicable in the facts of the present case. This Court deems it fit to deal with the same, as under: (I) In the case of Special Civil Application No. 2965 of 2001, Letter Patent Appeal No. 1006 of 2006 and AIR 1994 SC 1074 . In the aforesaid judgments, the advise of the GPSC was not supplied to the delinquent-employee and in view thereof, the orders in the respective cases were quashed and set aside. In the aforesaid judgments, the advise of the GPSC was not supplied to the delinquent-employee and in view thereof, the orders in the respective cases were quashed and set aside. In the facts of the present case, the inquiry report showed integrity of the petitioner doubtful and after due consultation with the GPSC, it was not desirable to continue the petitioner in service and a copy of the opinion of GPSC was provided to the petitioner herein, on 18.03.2005. (II) LPA No. 1114 of 2022, order dated 06.09.2023, wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that, settlement of the disputes were not the sole decision of the appellant, in the facts of the said Appeal. However, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner herein was a team leader and recommender in all the cases. (III) In the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh, 2008 Law Suit SC 2270, in the facts of the said case, the requisite documents were not supplied to the delinquent-employee and the witnesses were not examined. In the facts of the present case, upon perusal of the documents, it emerges that disciplinary inquiry is held, following the cardinal principles of natural justice. In view thereof also, the aforesaid decision is not applicable, in the facts of the present case. 9. POSITION OF LAW: (I) In the case of Subrata Nath vs. Union of India & Ors. 2022 Live Law (SC) 998, relevant Paras-15 to 22 reads thus: “15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory have not been adhered to or there are mala-fides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere. 16. In the above context, following are the observations made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra): “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” [Emphasis laid] 17. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, a two Judge Bench of this Court held as below: “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil) [Emphasis laid] 18. In Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, a two Judge Bench of this Court referred to several precedents on the Doctrine of Proportionality of the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and held that: “21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.” 19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran13 held thus: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority. (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf. (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings. (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case. (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations. (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion. (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence. (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding. (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence. (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law. (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence. (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence. (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be. (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 20. In Union of India and Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, a two Judge Bench of this Court made the following pertinent observations: “23. The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. 24. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. 24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons.” 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa and Others (supra) held that if the order of dismissal is based on findings that establish the prima facie guilt of great delinquency of the respondent, then the High Court cannot direct reconsideration of the punishment imposed. Once the gravity of the misdemeanour is established and the inquiry conducted is found to be consistent with the prescribed rules and reasonable opportunity contemplated under the rules, has been afforded to the delinquent employee, then the punishment imposed is not open to judicial review by the Court. As long as there was some evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority did, such an order becomes unassailable and the High Court ought to forebear from interfering. The above view has been expressed in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur. 22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. The above view has been expressed in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur. 22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.” (II) In the case of Haji Hamidkhan Rahemankhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2016) 3 GUJ 460, relevant Para-23 and 30 reads thus: “23. The compulsory retirement in the service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, the compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of the Article 311 of the Constitution. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of the Article 311 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, and Rule 10 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with the loss of retiral benefits. [See Shyamlal Vs. State of U.P. (1955) 1 SCR 26 ; Brijmohansingh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 188 ; Ramchandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, (1994) Supple 3 SCC 424; Baikunth Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. (1992) 2 SCC 299 ]. More appropriately it is like premature retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government servant shall be entitled to the pension actually earned and other retiral benefits. So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The object of such compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the government servant but to weed out the worthless who have lost their utility for the administration by their insensitive, unintelligent or dubious conduct impeding the flow of administration or promoting stagnation. [See: Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 (2) SCC 305 ] 30. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ applicant is not entitled to receive the regular pension, but is only entitled to the compassionate pension in accordance with the rules referred to above.” 10. [See: Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 (2) SCC 305 ] 30. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ applicant is not entitled to receive the regular pension, but is only entitled to the compassionate pension in accordance with the rules referred to above.” 10. Considering the position of law as referred above and the facts of the present case, it emerges that the petitioner herein is compulsorily retired, w.e.f. 31.03.2005, upon detailed inquiry conducted by the respondent authorities, before passing the order of punishment, wherein, disciplinary authority held that charge nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19 (4 charges) fully proved, charge nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 (10 charges) partly proved and charge nos. 1, 4, 11, 16 and 17 (5 charges) not proved, requires no interference. The contentions of the petitioner that inquiry report and advise of the GPSC are not supplied to the petitioner, does not weigh with the Court, in view of the undisputed fact that the same was supplied on 18.03.2005, which Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has not disputed also. The charges levelled against the petitioner as discussed above, the impugned order passed by the respondent authority, in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference, the same having been taken in the interest of administration. The impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement does not require any interference. Ms. Ashar, learned AGP, has also stated that the impugned order does not disclose the punishment as punitive. The petitioner has expired and the legal representatives and heirs of the deceased petitioner are entitled for the compassionate pension as per Rule-77 to 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, in accordance with the rules and regulations. 11. Considering the charges and gravity of the offence, and considering the same which are proved and partly proved, requires no interference. 12. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, in the opinion of this court, no interference is called for to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, in the impugned order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the respondent authority. The present Petition fails and DISMISSED accordingly. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.