IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary authorities to follow the necessary procedure and principles of natural justice, as mandated by the disciplinary rules, when imposing major penalties such as compulsory retirement.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for respondent no.1. Notice is served upon respondent no.2 but none appears.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 22.06.2017 whereby the petition was allowed. The order of compulsory retirement dated 18.11.2018 passed against the respondent by the District Collector-respondent no.1 came to be set aside. Also was set aside the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service consequential benefits including backwages as if the order of compulsory retirement was not passed.

2.1 What was prayed in the main petition was to set aside the order of compulsory retirement as well as the judgment of the tribunal. The prayer was made to set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge-sheet dated 21.06.2005 resulting into order of compulsory retirement.

3. The respondent herein-original petitioner was appointed as Gujarati Stenographer (Grade-III) in the office of the Collector, Bharuch whose posting was in the office of the Conservator of Forest, Rajpipla. The petitioner came to be transferred to Gandhinagar officer of the Conservator of Forest in the year 1987.

3.1 The petitioner came to be allotted plot of land admeasuring 90 metres since he had been serving in the office of Conservator of Forest. A scheme was brought out by the State Government for allotment of plots at concessional rates to the Government employees in the year 1988. The petitioner had applied for plot and got it allotted. The loan was also sanctioned in the year 1999 and the same was repaid.

3.1.1 On 21.06.2005 that the charge-sheet came to be issued against the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner included that his services were not transferred to Gandhinagar and though his original establishment was at Baroda, the petitioner produced false affidavit and certificate in order to obtain the plots at Gandhinagar at concessional rate.

3.1.2 It was the allegation that he was not eligible since the Government Resolution dated 29.06.1988 and 05.11.1988 considering those employees serving at Gandhinagar to be eligible for applying for plot at concessional rate. It was also the allegation that the petitioner misguided the department to suggest that his original establishment was at Gandhinagar, whereas it was at Baroda. As per the charge, the plot was wrongly got allotted by applying such means. The chargesheet was given in the year 2005, which was after a gap of 17 years.

3.2 The petitioner faced the departmental inquiry. In the report 08.06.2006, the inquiry officer concluded that the petitioner did not make any false declaration or filed false affidavit to obtain the plot nor he misguided the authorities. The copy of the report figures at page 39 of the compilation. The inquiry officer concluded that the Deputy Conservator of Forest was responsible for issuing false certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied.

3.2.1 The inquiry officer absolved the petitioner from first two charges. The inquiry office recommended minor penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. It appears that the disciplinary authority proceeded thereafter, as if all the charges were proved against the petitioner during the inquiry.

3.2.2 It appears that the disciplinary authority did not record the reasons for its disagreement with the findings recorded in the inquiry report in relation to the first two charges and ignoring the exoneration of the petitioner, inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement. The punishment order of compulsory retirement was passed on 31.07.2006.

3.3 The petitioner thereafter preferred Appeal No. 222 of 2006 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. The order of compulsory retirement was se