The highest authority can impose penalties as the primary authority in disciplinary matters, and the right of appeal may not be violated in such circumstances.

F.M. Reis, J.

Heard Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. The above petition inter alia seeks to set aside the order dated 06.10.2015 and to order the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 07.07.2004, an order was issued by the Under Secretary on the recommendations of the GPSC appointing the petitioner to the post of Block Development Officer. Thereafter, on 10.09.2008, the Additional Director (Vigilance) had issued an order under Rule 18(1) and (2) of the CCS Appeal Rules that the Government of Goa directed disciplinary action against two officers including the petitioner in common proceedings and that the Governor of Goa functions as a disciplinary authority. Subsequently, a Memorandum was issued on 10.09.2008 that the Governor proposed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Appeal Rules. The Memorandum along with four annexures including the Articles of Charge and statement of imputation of misconduct were submitted to the petitioner. Four charges were framed against the petitioner as regards the shifting of the alignment of work and recording in the measurement book. The petitioner thereafter filed his reply somewhere in September, 2008 and contended that the applicable Circulars and past practice were followed by the petitioner and the petitioner had power to permit such shifting of alignment. It is further contended that the work was in fact completed but partly on a different location. The Presenting Officer filed his submissions in support of the Inquiry Proceedings to sustain the charges. The petitioner also filed written submission and produced certain documents. In the meanwhile, on 28.10.2009, the petitioner was confirmed in the Grade of Block Development Officer after satisfactory completion of the probation period. The Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondent submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges stood proved. It is contended by the petitioner that the inquiry report is illegal as it was passed ignoring the admissions by the Department witnesses and the material on record. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation to the Additional Director (Vigilance) against the inquiry report on 17.08.2010. Somewhere in 2012 in some other proceedings against the petitioner, was served with a suspension order. Subsequently, somewhere in May, 2012 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice as to why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on the petitioner. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice and by the impugned order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 concluding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and holding that in public interest the petitioner deserves imposition of a major penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. The respondent filed affidavit in reply inter alia contending that the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority having committed irregularities in the work of reconstruction of a road from Mr. Atmaram Tirodkar's house to Mr. Pelvan Salgaonkar's house at Madel. It is further contended that the petitioner was also charged to have committed irregularities in the work of improvement and asphalting of road from Silvano D'Souza's house to St. Rock Chapel at Khoddai, V.P. of Thivim. It is also contended that the petitioner was also charged for irregularities in the work of reconstruction of the road and gutter from Estafania D'Souza to Filomena Menezes house at Madel. It is further pointed out that looking into the nature of misconduct which is serious in nature and keeping in view the said Government Policy of Zero Tolerance on Corruption and