The main legal point established is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice, including the disclosure of reasons for decisions and the supply of vital materials considered before imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.9.2009 imposing monthly pension cut of Rs.500/- for 5 years and to refund the amount if any deducted from the pension of the petitioner with interest.

2. Briefly stated facts of the petitioner are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was serving as Taluka Development Officer and he retired on superannuation on 30.6.2002. A charge-sheet dated 11.3.2002 came to be issued by the State Government for holding departmental enquiry against the present petitioner where the petitioner was serving as Taluka Development Officer from 22.2.2000 to 13.6.2001 at Lakhtar, at that time, an amount of Rs.32,01,440/- was paid more in connection with the damage caused due to earthquake in 84 cases of Bhadwana village. The petitioner sent his reply and denied the charge. The Enquiry Officer appointed as regular enquiry came to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer his filed his report on 11.6.2006, wherein he did not find the charge proved against the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued notice dated 14.9.2006 calling upon the petitioner to make his pension against the findings of the Disciplinary Authority.

2.2 In response to the said notice, the petitioner made a representation on 18.12.2006. After lapse of 3 years of submission of representation, vide order dated 30.9.2009, the petitioner was imposed penalty of pension cut of Rs.500/- per month for five years.

2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of pension, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Mr. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from the charge levelled against him though the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of Enquiry Officer and issued the show cause notice without any reason for disagreement and copy of the tentative reasons is not supplied and upto to that extent, prejudice caused to the present petitioner. Even while passing the order of punishment, the advice of Gujarat Public Service Commission (‘GPSC’ for short) is obtained on record, but the said advice is not communicated for supplying to the petitioner. Hence, he has requested to allow the present petitions as considering the breach of principles of natural justice and in absence of communication of tentative reasons of the disagreement is violation of principles of natural justice and he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1999 SC 3734].

4. Per contra, Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State has submitted that the ample opportunity provided to the present petitioner prior to passing an order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority has informed the petitioner about disagreement which is produced on record. While forwarding the report by the District Development Officer, Surendranagar, the petitioner was informed that he is responsible for showing the estimated loss more than actual loss which was provided and payment was made by the petitioner himself. The financial misappropriation/irregularities were found and the petitioner held guilty. The petitioner has submitted his representation. The said representation was also considered. Thereafter, the respondent decided to take disciplinary decision against the petitioner on 15.9.2008. Thereafter, the correspondence forwarded to the GPSC for consultation/advice vide order dated 7.10.2008. GPSC sought further clarifications on 25.11.2008, 3.3.2009, 4.4.2009, 15.6.2009 and 28.7.2009. All these correspondence are placed on record at Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R11. Considering the aforesaid correspondence, GPSC consented/agreed with the decision of punishment and accorded the consent on 31.8.2009 which i