Point of Law: Gratuity and other pensionary benefits - petitioner could not have been held responsible for the computers not found after his date of retirement- Inquiry Officer has not given any reason to hold the petitioner to responsible for non availability of the computers in the office

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nilay Suchak for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kurven Desai for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 through video conference.

2. By way of this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction, thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the respondent No.3 herein;

(C) That pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, stay the implementation and execution of the order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the respondent No.3 and be further please to release the amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits amounts:

(D) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the departmental inquiry conducted by the respondent No.5 herein as the same being illegal and without application of mind.

(E) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass any other and further orders in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Talaticum-Mantri at Village-Saijpur-Piplaj, City Taluka, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2004. After the retirement of the petitioner, charges were levelled against the petitioner that when the petitioner was serving as Talaticum-Mantri at Village-Saijpur-Piplaj, City Taluka, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad, the petitioner gave an undated receipt of the computers received by the Gram Panchayat purchased by the Taluka Panchayat and when the actual physical verification of the computers was done in month of April, such computers were not found in the office of the Gram Panchayat. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with the company supplying the computers, had misappropriated the purchase price of the computers amounting to Rs.1,70,600/.

4. The Chargesheet was issued after one year from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. on 29.03.2005 for initiating the departmental proceedings under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Rules) 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his defence statement in inquiry conducted by the Taluka Development Officer, who was appointed as an Inquiry Officer by the Deputy District Development Officer, District Pancyayat, Ahmedabad on 20.05.2005. The Inquiry Officer submitted the Inquiry Report dated 13.02.2006 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved.

5. It appears that, thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued on 22.03.2006. On 24.03.2006 after considering the reply of the petitioner, reference was made to the State Government for imposing the penalty of deduction of Rs.100/from the monthly pension of the petitioner for life time and to recover the cost of computers i.e. Rs.1,70,600/.

6. The Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board also, vide letter dated 12.12.2006, gave permission to levy penalty upon the petitioner and the State Government, vide order dated 29.05.2007 considering the inquiry report, passed an order to levy the penalty of deduction of Rs. 100/from the monthly pension and to recover Rs.1,70,600/. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved, has preferred this petition.

7. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave as his Lordship was then) passed the following order on 08.07.2008 protecting the petitioner from recovery and deduction of Rs.100/per month from the monthly pension:

“Heard learned advocates for the parties. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, affidavits in reply are filed by respondent Nos.4 and 6 on 29.01.2008 and 21.04.2008 respectively, wherein the Incharge Officer, Nagarpalika Cell, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, verified the fact that the computer, along with monitor, CPU and keyboard, is available, which earlier belonged to Saijpur-Gopalpur