IMPORTANT POINT
The Court's limited jurisdiction under Article 226 in interfering with the quantum of punishment and the application of the principle of parity in punishment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the penalty order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries (Disciplinary Authority), respondent No.1 and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Gandhinagar in Appeal No. 314 of 2006 and prayed for below mentioned relief/s:-

“16 (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to vacate the impugned final judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.314/2006;

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the penalty order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries (Disciplinary Authority), respondent No.1 directing the recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the petitioner;

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to declare that the findings of the Inquiry Officer contained in his report dated 21.12.2005 holding charge No.(3) partly proved against the petitioner as perverse;

(D) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.314/2006 and the penalty order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries (Disciplinary Authority), respondent No.1 directing recovery of 15,000/- from the petitioner; and

(E) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was serving as Fieldsman in the office of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Surat since last 30 years. During the period from 12.4.1990 to 4.9.1997 the petitioner was working at Ukai Fisheries Farm in Surat. On 30.6.1997 on a visit paid by the Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries (Vadodara) loss of 8035 Kgs. of brooders was reported. The petitioner and several others employees were held responsible for the said loss and the chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner. In the departmental inquiry, the charges against the petitioner were held proved and the authority passed a penalty order on 17.6.2002 withholding one increment of the petitioner and directed recovery of Rs.28,712/- from him. Against that Appeal was preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No.261 of 2002 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar and the said authority quashed and set aside the penalty order and remanded the matter for fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

2.1 In a fresh inquiry, inquiry officer has submitted his report dated 21.12.2005 holding charge No.3 partly proved against the petitioner. Based on the said the Commissioner of Fisheries, passed a fresh order on 24.7.2006 directing recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the petitioner.

2.2 Again petitioner moved Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar by filing Appeal No.314 of 2006 which was rejected by the said authority on 3.12.2010 and against that order the petitioner has filed present petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ninad P. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents authorities.

4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that three persons came to be charged for the alleged charges leveled against them, however, so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the petitioner was imposed higher punishment in comparison of other two employees. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in case of other two co-employees, though they are facing similar charges, they have imposed lesser penalty.

5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the foll