The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary authority had the jurisdiction to conduct proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement, and the penalty imposed was not shockingly disproportionate to the charges.

V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 16.7.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2-Board imposing penalty of reduction of 40% pension with permanent effect, to declare that the inquiry initiated and conducted under charge sheet dated 29.2.1992 by the Board-respondent No. 2 is without authority and jurisdiction and to declare that the addition of new charges by the Board in the charge sheet was without authority and the whole inquiry was vitiated.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner joined the services in Public Health Engineering Department as Overseer in the year 1957, he was promoted as Executive Engineer in 1971, Superintending Engineer in June 1981 and as Chief Engineer on 7.9.1988 and worked on the said post till he retired on 29.2.1992. That on decision of the State Government to establish a separate board known as "Water Supply and Sewerage Board", an Act known as "Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted which came into force on 6.6.1979. Pursuant to the said establishment, first notification dated 30.3.1981 was issued by which officers and employees specified in the schedule appended to the notification were placed at the disposal of the board on deputation basis, however, the name of the petitioner was deleted as he was already on deputation elsewhere. Thereafter, on a subsequent notification of 10.2.1988, all those who were specified in the first notification of 30.3.1981 were transferred/absorbed on permanent basis. As the name of the petitioner was not there in the first notification, he was not permanently transferred and continued to enjoy the status of the government servant and no notification was issued so far as the petitioner is concerned. Thereafter, the services of all those who were so transferred were terminated and became the officers of the Board. The petitioner continued to remain under the disciplinary control of the state government though he was working on deputation with the board firstly in the capacity of the Superintending Engineer and thereafter in the capacity of Chief Engineer. He submitted that the petitioner's services were never transferred on permanent basis to the Board and he remained on deputation service of the board and remained under the disciplinary control of the state government till his retirement on 29.2.1992.

2.1 That on the date of the retirement of the petitioner, the board issued a charge sheet containing one charge in respect of incident of 1988, thereafter on 9.7.1992 i.e. after his retirement, a new charge sheet by adding number of other new charges to the first chargesheet was issued. The inquiry proceeded further and the petitioner submitted his written explanation on 31.3.1996 and after one year on 31.3.1997 the inquiry officer submitted a report that the charges levelled are proved. Thereafter, on 18.3.1999 the board passed a Resolution in its meeting and decided to impose a penalty of reduction of 40% of the pension on permanent basis. An order was passed based on the said decision on 16.7.1999 which the petitioner received on 15.9.1999 wherein it was communicated that out of the total amount of pension of Rs. 7476/-, an amount of Rs. 2990/- will be deducted permanently. Thus, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aditya Pandya for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Goutam for respondent No. 1 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for respondent No. 2.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer at Rajkot Municipal Corporation in 1981 and he came on deputation in 1982 to the services of the respondent-Board as Superintending Engineer and therefore he was required to discharge his duties there. Thereafter, the petitioner became Chief Engineer after promotion was granted by the State G