The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, confirming adherence to natural justice principles and justifying the proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. The petitioner herein by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 imposing punishment duly produced at Annexure – P; the same being unreasonable, arbitral and violative of principles of natural justice and has prayed for the following reliefs:

“13. In view of the above facts and circumstances the Petitioner therefore PRAY this Hon Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prays that this Hon. Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order:-

a) Quashing and setting aside the impugned order DT 01.08.2005 and order dated 10.02.2009 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Gujarat Gandhinagar Respondent No.2.

b) Direct the Respondent No.2 to treat the entire period of suspension from 01.10.1983 to 06.03.2000 as duty for all purposes with annual increments, difference of salary alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date the amount is due till the date of payment, continuity of service, seniority and all other consequential benefits as if the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 are not passed.

c) Directing the Respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from the date from which his junior was promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forests and Deputy Conservator of Forests etc.

d) Granting such other and further reliefs and passing such other and further orders as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

e) Awarding costs of this application to the applicant.”

2. Heard Mr. C.K. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja K. Ashar, learned AGP appearing for the respondents.

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

3.1 The petitioner herein came to be appointed as Range Forest Officer on 07.11.1975. Thereafter, chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 15.10.1983. On 30.01.1985, the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer after 18 months. On 15.04.1986, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

3.2 In the year 1986, an appeal came to be filed before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal by the petitioner. On 07.12.1987, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the department for denovo inquiry on day to day basis.

3.3 On 30.10.1990, the second inquiry report was submitted after a long period of three years wherein, charges were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the Inquiry Officer’s report. On 07.02.1992, the respondent authority issued show cause notice for compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 30.10.1992.

3.4 On 02.11.1992, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.7798 of 1992. On 02.12.1993, the said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the matter within 8 weeks. On 01.02.1994, the respondent authority issued order of compulsory retirement. On 11.04.1994, the said order was challenged before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by way of Appeal No.196 of 1994. On 28.05.1997, the Tribunal set aside the order of 01.02.1994 and directed to reconsider the case afresh from the stage of show cause notice.

3.5 On 19.04.1999, again show cause notice for compulsory retirement was issued to the petitioner. On 07.03.2000, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondent in the post of Range Forest Officer. On 01.05.2002, the respondent issued an order enhancing the punishment and fine to the tune of Rs.50,223/- from Rs.7590/- without issuance of show cause notice. In view thereof, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.6294 of 2002 to redress the grievances wherein, by order dated 04.02.2003, the order dated 01.05.2002 came to be quashed and set aside. On 29.12.2003, the respondent modified the order of 01.05.2002.

3.6 On 01.08.2005, the punis