IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action, emphasizing the distinct standards of proof in criminal and administrative proceedings.

ORDER :

(Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. K. V. Shelat, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Motla, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State.

2. By way of present petition the petitioner herein has invoked the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in the Appeal No.253/06/2015 dated 17.1.2007.

It is prayed that in the departmental inquiry the Inquiry Officer has not allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses nor has allowed the petitioner to remain present at the time of taking statements of the witnesses, has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the process of effective representation made by the petitioner. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 25.8.2006 whereby the petitioner herein is ordered to be removed from the service.

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

2.1 The petitioner herein was working as driver in the community Health Center at Maliya Miyana Centre. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 9.5.2001 initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The charge- sheet is duly produced at Annexure-A. The charges framed against the petitioner read thus :-

(i) The petitioner declined to take the ambulance from the Community Health Centre at Dakor for an emergency work on 14.7.2000 and at that time he abused and assaulted Dr.I.G.Sahani, Superintending Officer and caused knife injuries.

(ii) As a driver of ambulance he declined to carry emergency services entrusted to him.

(iii) The petitioner misbehaved with the higher officer.

2.2 The petitioner submitted his representation against the charge-sheet alleging violation of Rule 3(1) of Gujarat State Discipline & Conduct Rules, 1971. Upon the similar grounds a criminal complaint was also filed against the petitioner wherein after fullfledged trial, the petitioner is acquitted on 11.12.2003.

2.3 On 18.7.2006, the petitioner was sent a copy of the inquiry report and called upon to submit his defense. The petitioner submitted defense on 29.7.2006.

2.4 The petitioner pointed out that essentially there was only one charge with respect to the incident alleged to have taken place on 13.7.2000 alleging that when the Superintending Officer asked the petitioner to take the ambulance from Community Centre at Dakor to Ahmedabad, the petitioner refused, abused and assaulted the said Superintending officer with knife. The said incident was on the basis of further departmental proceedings also. The relevant copies of the statements were not supplied to the petitioner for cross- examining the witnesses and to make effective representation and thereby the non-supply of relevant material resulted in failure of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not allowed to represent and submit reply to the proof submitted by the Superintending Officer.

2.5 The petitioner represented that at the time of examination of the witnesses, the petitioner or his representative were not allowed to remain present and the witnesses were examined ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of cross-examining them and consequently the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer itself was illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

2.6 The respondent authorities passed an order dated 25.8.2006 based on inquiry officer's report without considering the defense of the petitioner and directed, the petitioner be dismissed from service.

2.7 The petitioner herein preferred appeal being Appeal No.253 of 2006 before the Gujarat State Civil Services Tribunal at Gandhinagar.

2.8 The petitioner contended that the Inquiry Officer previously made inquiry report on 2.1.2006 in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the respondent authorities appears to have sent back the inquiry report and it appears that even on the second