IMPORTANT POINT
The court cannot interfere in the findings recorded by the authority while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers:-

22(A) Quash an set aside the order dt.14.9.2004 and appellate order dt.7.3.2005 and reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits excluding the back wages for the period of delay in filing the petition.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner.

(C) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit.

2. The facts of the present case are as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor/Additional Assistant Engineer on 21.11.1977 in the State Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department. From 1981, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the respondent Board wherein he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer on 19.6.2008 and worked as such till he was dismissed from service by the order dated 14.9.2004.

2.2 That A charge-sheet dated 21.4.1997 was issued to the petitioner for holding a departmental inquiry into 6 charges regarding alleged misappropriation and irregularities during the period he worked at Palitana. That the petitioner did not give any reply to the above charge-sheet.

2.3 The respondent-board by the order dated 30.05.2000 decided to hold a common departmental inquiry against 8 persons including the petitioner. That an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the common Departmental Inquiry, who, as per his report found all the charges proved against the petitioner. A copy of the portion of Inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner.

2.4 By the letter dated 20.09.2001, the petitioner was called upon to make his representation. Accordingly, the petitioner made his representation on 09.10.2001. After referring to the above representation, the Respondent no.1 by the order dated 14.09.2004 dismissed the petitioner from service and also treated the period of suspension from 26.07.1996 to 09.12.1998 as spent under suspension.

2.5 Against the above order, the petitioner filed appeal dated 20.09.2004 before the Appellate Authority, Respondent no.2. This appeal was supplemented by the letter dated 11.10.2004 addressed to many persons including Respondent no.2. By the letter dated 07.03.2005, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the penalty of dismissal as well as the suspension period as such has been maintained. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner against order of dismissal as well as appellate order.

3. Ms. Vacha Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petition is disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. She has submitted that since there were eight persons, who charge-sheeted for the offence and out of eight persons, only three persons were punished. She has submitted that so far as other two delinquents are concerned, they were faced the similar charges who have imposed minor penalties and the petitioner was imposed major punishment and therefore, there is discriminatory treatment on the part of the respondent – authorities.

3.1 In support of her contention, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority relying upon the Inquiry Office’s report without applying independent mind and without recording any findings on the charge, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from the service and therefore, this order is without there being any reason, without considering the settled principle of law and without going through the rules and regulations of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, more particularly, while imposing the major penalty under Rule-6, the principle of natural justice is required to be followed.

3.2 In support of the submission, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme