IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that non-compliance with procedural requirements, particularly the supply of relevant documents, violates natural justice and invalidates disciplinary actions.

ORDER :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the respondent authority imposing penalty of total pension permanently on petitioner and prayed for direction qua the respondent to refund the amount deducted from the pension of the petitioner at the rate of 12%.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:

3.1 The petitioner herein was serving as Taluka Development Officer and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2006.

3.2 A chargesheet dated 26.06.2006 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent for holding a departmental inquiry into alleged irregularity committed by him in disbursing food grains towards the work of agricultural ponds which led to the excess payment of Rs.30,81,474/-. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted defence statement on 12.09.2006.

3.3 An Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the departmental inquiry who, after holding the same, by Inquiry report dated 14.06.2007 held the charges proved against the petitioner.

3.4 The respondent issued a show cause notice on 11.09.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the sum of Rs.23,52,981/- should not be recovered from the petitioner. It was stated in the said notice that out of Rs.30,81,474/-, the responsibility of the petitioner was to the extent of Rs.23,52,981/-.

3.5 The petitioner submitted representation on 07.12.2007. On 08.01.2010, the respondent authority imposed the penalty of total pension cut on permanent basis on the petitioner along with the copy of advice dated 07.12.2009 of the Gujarat Public Service Commission. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.01.2010; having served copy of the order along with the report of the Gujarat Public Service Commission, the petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“19. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction of order:

(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dt.8.1.2010 passed by the Respondent imposing penalty of total pension cut permanently on the petitioner, and directing the Respondent to refund the amount deducted from the pension of the petitioner, with 12% interest.

(B) Quashing and setting aside the departmental inquiry initiated vide charge sheet dt.26.6.2006.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent may be restrained from further implementing the order dated 8.1.2010.

(D) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”

4. Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 duly served to the petitioner along with the copy of the advice of the Gujarat Public Service Commission dated 07.12.2009 is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2011 (4) SCC 589 in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. S.K. Kapoor wherein, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if a copy of the advice of a Public Service Commission is not supplied in advance to the delinquent, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the impugned order of imposing penalty of total pension cut permanently on the petitioner, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 07.12.2007 pursuant to the show cause notice dated 11.09.2007, is not considered by the respondent authority. It is submitted that the impugned order is required to be interfered with for breach of Rule 9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (for short ‘Rules, 1971’) under which the disciplinary proceedings were held. It is submitted that non-compliance of Rule 9(17) of the Rules,