The court upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner based on substantiated charges of negligence and misconduct in verifying loan applications, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has challenged the order no. KKU-132001-2380-D-2 dated 31.03.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 compulsory retiring the petitioner from his existing post of Technical Officer, District Industrial Center, Palanpur.

3.1. Briefly stated that the petitioner herein joined the service in the department of Industry and Mines, on 16.03.1981, thereafter, petitioner was promoted as Technical Officer in the District Industrial Department on 16.09.1984.

3.2. On the morning of 26.01.2001, an earthquake of high magnitude of more than 7 on Richer Scale occurred, which shocked the whole of Gujarat State and more devastatingly entire Kutch District. The respondent-Government of Gujarat had prepared one package for rehabilitation, self-employment and revival of village and cottage industry, so as to give life to the dead cottage industry, more particularly, for the worst affected Talukas of Kutch District. For the implementation of the said scheme various teams were formed consisting of the officers working in the department of Industry and Mines.

3.3. The petitioner herein was entrusted with the work of the verification of the applications made by the earthquake victims under various schemes declared by the government. The petitioner was entrusted with the said work for Nakhtrana, Abdasa and Lakhpat taluka. The concerned department, received certain complaints with regard to the alleged irregularities committed in the implementation of the various schemes declared by the government for the earthquake victims. Pursuant to such complaints and certain news items, which were published in the vernacular newspaper, the Commissioner, Cottage and Village Industry and Mine Department directed the inquiry and the preliminary report was submitted by the In-charge Deputy Director (Bankabel), Village and Cottage Industry, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, which is duly produced at Annexure-B.

3.4. The petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.03.2002, upon the order passed by the Commissioner, Cottage and Village Industry, State of Gujarat, alleging irregularities in verification of application made by the earthquake victims. The petitioner herein was served with the charge-sheet and was asked to file his response/reply to the said charges levelled against him and further intend to oral investigation. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why punishment should not be imposed in terms of Rule-6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplines and Appeal) Rules, 1971, if charges were proved against the petitioner herein.

3.5. The main charges levelled against the petitioner herein in the said charge-sheet was that the petitioner was working as I.P.O. in District Industrial Center, Palanpur and was assigned with the task of recommending loan to the earthquake victims. The main charges framed against the petitioner are that: (i) showing negligence in verifying the applications for loan made by the earthquake victims of Abdasa, Lakhpat and Nakhtrana taluka of Kutch district for self employment and reestablishment/development of trade and business, (ii) conducting unreasonable proceedings with a view to recommend the non genuine loan applications, (iii) Government was put to the financial burden of payment of subsidy to the tune of Rs.17.14 crores, (iv) by violating the provisions made in the resolution dated 13.03.2001 passed by the Industry and Mines Department, (v) showing lack of honesty and sincerity in performing the duties and committing breach of Rule-3(1) 1 and 3(2) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. In all, the petitioner was charge-sheeted with 19 charges. The charge-sheet constituted of 19 charges against the petitioner, which is duly produced at Annexure-D.

3.6. The petitioner replied to th