The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited, and the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry if conducted in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The captioned writ petitions are filed challenging penalty order dated 05.11.2019, passed by respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority), wherein Disciplinary Authority has decided to deduct an amount of Rs. 500/- from pension of each of the petitioners for a period of six months.

2. Since all these petitioners, at the relevant time were serving as Additional Assistant Engineer with the State of Gujarat and for similar charges, were inflicted with same penalty, all these petitions are heard and decided together by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, the facts referred in Special Civil Application No.1504 of 2020 are considered for the purpose of adjudication of the petitions.

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, Ld. AGP waives service of Rule.

3. Facts in brief, are as under:

The petitioner was serving as Additional Assistant Engineer with Narmada and Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, Government of Gujarat since 1979 and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired in year 2015. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental inquiry along with 35 other co-delinquents for an alleged incident of the year 1992-94. The charge sheet containing allegations was filed after a period of 10 years on 28.04.2003, from the date of incident. The allegations, in the charge-sheet, were that the petitioner had not prepared the quotation and had not invited tenders and thereby assisted the Superior Officers (Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer) in passing the rate list and bills, which resulted into loss to the Government. Upon conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, submitted his report dated 10.09.2013, exonerating the petitioner. However, as the Disciplinary Authority was not in agreement with the report of inquiry officer, a show Cause Notice along with reasons for disagreement was served upon the petitioner on 08.02.2016.

The petitioner responded to the Show Cause Notice by filing reply, pointing out that the other co-delinquents (Deputy Executive Engineers and Executive Engineers), who were charge-sheeted for the same charges, had preferred petitions challenging the issuance of the charge-sheet mainly on the ground of delay in initiating the departmental proceedings and this Court by a detailed judgment had quashed and set aside the charge-sheet issued to both Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer (superior officers). Ignoring the reply of present petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a penalty, aggrieved by which, this petition is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi for the Respondent- State.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain for the petitioners made the following submissions :

(i) Penalty orders passed by respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority) is contrary to the decision of this Court and the Government Resolutions on the subject.

(ii) Disciplinary Authority has failed to consider the charges levelled against the petitioners, which refers that the petitioners failed in preparing Quotation and by not inviting the tenders, assisted the Superior Officers, which resulted into loss to the Government. The Superior Officer of the petitioners being Deputy Executive Engineer had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.1676 of 1998, challenging the initiation of departmental proceedings, wherein the petition was allowed on the ground of initiation of departmental proceedings after inordinate delay of 13 years and the respondents were further directed to pay all the retiral dues as if no charge-sheet had been issued within a period of 30 days with 8% interest.

(iii) Further, in one more petition by the Executive Engineer being Special Civil Application No.12377 of 2016, this court had allowed the petition with the same directions as contained in Special Civil Application No.1676 of 1998. Therefore, non-consideration of reply filed by th