IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness, including the necessity of evidence and consideration of the employee's defense, to ensure just outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.164 of 2008 dated 30.07.2011/01.08.2011 duly produced at Annexure-K.

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

3.1. The respondent no.1 born on 12.12.1961, having joined the service on 09.07.1984 and was granted inter-district transfer and accordingly, reported for duty on 17.01.1994 at Limkheda Taluka Panchyat. The respondent no.1 was an Extension Officer and appointed as administrator of Shasta Gram Panchayat, Taluka: Limkheda through order dated 27.07.2000 and he worked in that capacity till 27.02.2002. The respondent no.1 was administrator of the said Gram Panchayat wherein, it was found that there were number of financial irregularities and, therefore, a report dated 01.08.2003 was submitted by the Taluka Development Officer, Limkheda to the petitioner on 01.08.2003 subsequent to the instructions issued on 30.05.2002. The copy of report is duly produced at Annexure-A.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 misappropriated an amount to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/- in collusion with the then Talati-cum-Mantri - Mr. Rathod. The grant that was provided for public project was siphoned away. The chargesheet came to be issued to the respondent no.1 on 12.09.2003 in view of the fact that prima facie, it was found that the respondent no.1 was involved in serious irregularities. The same is duly produced at Annexure-B.

3.3. The respondent no.1 did not reply to the said chargesheet and in view thereof, the inquiry officer was appointed for initiating the departmental inquiry. The report was submitted on 31.12.2004 holding that the charges levelled against the respondent no.1 stood proved. Immediately thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued to the respondent no.1 on 27.01.2005 under Rule 8(11)(k) of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 (for short, the “said Rules”), which is duly produced at Annexure-D.

3.4. The letter was addressed to the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board at Ahmedabad, seeking opinion on the issue of penalty and the same was replied to by the Board opining for the penalty of dismissal, which is duly produced at Annexure-E.

3.5. Considering the material on record and defense of the respondent no.1, the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board thought it fit to impose the penalty of dismissal vide order dated 06.03.2006 at Annexure-F. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the respondent no.1 before the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Development Commissioner, Government of Gujarat by way of filing Appeal No.14 of 2006. The same came to be rejected on 31.08.2006.

3.6. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.1 approached the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal, Gandhinagar by preferring Appeal No.164 of 2008 but, vide order dated 21.04.2007, the learned Tribunal remanded the matter to the petitioner to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry. The said order is duly produced at Annexure-G. The petitioner herein initiated fresh inquiry by order dated 26.06.2007. The respondent no.1 represented his case by filing a reply on 28.10.2007.

3.7. The respondent no.1 was issued fresh notice on 09.01.2008 under Rule 8(11)(k) of the said Rules. The respondent no.1 offered explanation on 15.01.2008 in writing. The opinion of the Board was sought for the same charges of earlier departmental inquiry and in view thereof, fresh opinion was not sought for, considering the proved charges on the basis of the facts and record and order dated 01.02.2008 came to be passed, dismissing the respondent no.1 from service. The said order is duly produced at Annexure-J.

3.8. The respondent no.2 herein rejected Appeal No.9 of