IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal of an employee who defied his only second transfer order in more than 18 years and remained absent unauthorisedly and continued to level allegations against his superior officers cannot be interfered.

Judgment :-

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1360 of 2004 on dated 24.11.2006 and final judgment and order dated 19.1.2007 in Misc.Civil Application for Review No.116/2007.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-

The appellant had joined service of respondent no.1 as Food Inspector on 1.12.1982. The appellant worked for 14 years as Food Inspector at Ahmedabad as well as Gandhinagar Circle. Thereafter, for the first time in 1996, he was transferred to Rajkot. He remained there for three years.

4. On 30.9.1999, the appellant was transferred to Bhuj. However, he did not join duty at Bhuj and after a period of 20 days, i.e. on 04.10.1999, he sent a fax message of illness of his mother. Though the appellant was relieved on 05.10.1999 from Rajkot, yet he did not join duty at Bhuj and instead he entered into correspondence with respondent no.2. The appellant was given personal hearing in November 1999 by respondent no. 2. Even after his advice, he did not join duty at Bhuj.

5. The Assistant Commissioner, Bhuj again on 04.01.2000 called upon the appellant to immediately join the duty, but the appellant not comply with his direction. The appellant on 17.01.2000 filed a reply to the show cause notice and bluntly refused to join duty at Bhuj. Ultimately, by an order dated 08.03.2000 the appellant was suspended from the service pending enquiry. It was only thereafter he made a symbolic report on 27.4.2000 at Bhuj with condition in pursuance of the order of transfer dated 30.9.1999.

6. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet on 5.5.2000 containing following seven charges:

(i) He unauthorizedly remained absent between the period 11.10.1999 and 27.4.2000;

(ii) He on his own decided the place of discharging his duty without receiving any prior permission of the competent officer instead of reporting at transferred place;

(iii) He exerted mental pressure and also gave threats by writing letter to the Head of the department for transferring him to a place of his choice;

(iv) He acted beyond his official authority by giving notice to his superior officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules;

(v) He flouted and disobeyed the orders of the Head of the department as well as the Head of the office;

(vi) Ignoring the office orders issued by the Government, he directly represented to his Head of the department regarding his transfer; and,

(vii) He used intemperate language not befitting a government employee.

7. The appellant was given full opportunity to defend his case in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer in his detailed report found the appellant guilty of all the charges levelled against him and sent his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the same and the appellant was served with second show cause notice issued by respondent no. 3 calling upon him to show cause within 15 days as to why one of the punishments indicated in Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules should not be imposed. He sent his reply on 12.11.2001 followed by his second reply dated 10.12.2001. In view of the serious allegations levelled by the appellant against respondent no.2, he decided to refer the matter to the highest authority - the State of Gujarat for passing appropriate orders in the matter and after considering the replies dated 12.11.2001 and 10.12.2001 respondent no. 1 by his impugned order dated 22.5.2002 dismissed the services of the appellant.

8. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by a comprehensive judgment dealt with every aspect of the matter including the relevant cases which have been decided by this court. The learned Single Judge observed that the scope of jud