The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard before imposing penalties in disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. The State of Gujarat has filed this appeal challenging the oral judgment dated 28.03.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17159 of 2007. The respondent was the original petitioner therein who had preferred the petition seeking to challenge GPSC’s order dated 08.06.2007 whereby the pay of the petitioner/respondent herein was reduced by two stages for five years without future effect with a further stipulation that during that period the petitioner would not earn increment. The learned Single Judge by an extensive consideration of facts and various case laws held that the order of punishment was illegal and the same was therefore quashed and set aside directing the State to pay all consequential benefits.

2. The factual scenario as set out by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

“2. The facts in the capsulized form leading to the present petition are as under:

2.1 The petitioner, after clearing combined competitive examination conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('the GPSC' hereinafter) for various posts, was selected for Class I post, on the post of Gujarat Administrative Service (Class I) ('the GAS' hereinafter) from December, 1989 and his first appointment directly was on the post of Deputy Collector.

2.2 The petitioner worked as an Assistant Commissioner from June, 1992 to April 1994 with Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency (Sardar Sarovar Punahvasvat Agency as is known as 'SSPA') at Vadodara.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that in connection with the land, which was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and given to the SSPA, the question arose with regard to the counting of the trees and paying of compensation. The owner of the land had disputed the compensation on the ground of existence of more trees. The directions also came to be issued by the High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.2421, 2420 and 2418 of 1993. As request was for grant of compensation of the trees as per the panchnama made at the time of taking possession, on seeking instructions the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State has stated that necessary fund would be released by the Nigam for payment to the petitioner.

2.4 On April 19, 1993, prior to that on December 14, 1992 in the meeting held at the office Executive Director, SSPA, it was decided that the Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation would be asked to cross check the number of trees as the difference was huge in the total number of the trees present and those mentioned in the panchnama.

2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that in the said matter of payment to the original land owner, Shri P.M.Vakil, the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the present petitioner, who was working as acquiring body were issued the chargesheet by the Government. The Superior Officer of Shri P.M.Vakil, Shri M.F.Parmar was also chargesheeted. The petitioner was given a chargesheet on April 06, 1999 and subsequent corrigendum on June 06, 2002.

2.6 The detailed defence statement was submitted on October 18, 1999. After fullfledge inquiry, the Inquiry Officer on October 11, 2004 concluded that charges against the petitioner have not been proved. When sent to the Disciplinary Authority on April 01, 2005, it recorded its note of disagreement.

2.7 On April 26, 2005, the petitioner filed his representation to the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, certain clarifications were sought by the GAD from the Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, SSPA, which were furnished on February 07, 2006. The Revenue Department's opinion was also sought for the petitioner being in the cadre of Deputy Collector and the matter was also referred to the Revenue Department.

2.8 On August 18, 2006, the Revenue Department opined with regard to the quantum of penalty and accordingly, the matter was submitted to the State Government for consideration and approval of the proposal regarding imposition of penalty on petitioner and another