IMPORTANT POINT
The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi-judicial matter, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a dismissed employee of the Panchayat, has prayed for the following reliefs:

"8(A) Your Lordship be pleased to admit the special civil application

(B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and be pleased to quash and set aside the punishment order passed by the res No. 1 dtd 12/10/2007 which is annex at annexure 'A' to the present petition.

(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, directing the respondent to stay the order of pension cut and not recover any amount from the family pension of the petitioner,

(D) such other and further relief in the necessary and interest of justice be granted."

2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under:

2.1 The writ applicant joined the services of the Bharuch District Panchayat on 7th April 1962 as a 'Junior Clerk'. He was posted at the Primary Health Centre, Valiya, District : Bharuch.

2.2 In the year 1977, he was promoted to the post of 'Senior Clerk'.

2.3 On 7th December 1993, he was served with a departmental chargesheet alleging misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 525/- and gross negligence in discharge of his duties.

2.4 On 3rd January 1994, he filed a detailed defence statement denying all the charges levelled against him in the chargesheet.

2.5 On issue of the departmental chargesheet, the writ applicant was placed under suspension.

2.6 The department also thought fit to lodge a First Information Report being C.R. No. I-271 of 1993 with the Rajpipla Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the writ applicant for the offence of criminal misappropriation punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The filing of the chargesheet culminated in a Criminal Case No. 459 of 1995 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajpipla.

2.7 The J.M.F.C., Rajpipla, at the end of the trial, held the writ applicant guilty of the offence and passed an order of conviction and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

2.8 Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, the writ applicant preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge.

2.9 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, camp at Rajpipla, by the judgment and order dated 28th July 2005 allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court.

2.10 So far as the departmental inquiry is concerned, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and at the end of the inquiry, he reached to the conclusion that the charges stood proved against the writ applicant. The Panchayat, thereafter, transferred all the papers of the inquiry to the State Government.

2.11 The State Government vide order dated 12th October 2007 imposed a penalty of forfeiture of pension for all times to come and also ordered recovery of Rs. 1166.50 from the writ applicant.

2.12 Being dissatisfied, this writ application has been filed.

3. It appears from the materials on record that although the report of Inquiry Officer is dated 16th December 1996, yet the same was kept in a sealed cover since the criminal prosecution was pending against the writ applicant. The authority concerned thought fit to open the sealed cover in 2006 i.e. almost after a period of ten years from the date of the conclusion of the inquiry. It also appears that the writ applicant attained superannuation on 31st October 2001.

4. Mr. Pandit, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Government imposing the penalty of forfeiture of pension for all times to come by way of punishment is absolutely illegal. Mr. Pandit pointe