The necessity of providing reasons in administrative decisions is crucial for ensuring accountability and facilitating judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Suman Motla, learned A.G.P. appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 16438 of 2007.

2. The matters have been listed for hearing from time to time however, none has appeared for the legal heirs of the respondent no. 1 neither any request is made for adjournment.

3. In view of the aforesaid, by way of the present petitions, the order dated 29.05.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 280 of 2003, which was filed by deceased respondent-Shri M.F. Malek, is challenged.

4. The facts stated in petition being Special Civil Application No. 16438 of 2007 are recited and the said petition is treated as the lead matter.

5. Since the respondent herein was the appellant before the learned tribunal and the appeal was dismissed, for the sake of convenience, Shri M.F. Malek is treated as the petitioner and the State is referred to as the respondent.

6. By way of the present petitions, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.05.2006 passed by the Learned Tribunal in application No. 280 of 2003.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and order dated 29.05.2006 passed by the Learned Tribunal at Annexure-A to the petition.

(C) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further order as may be necessary in the interest of justice.”

7. The petitioner herein was discharging his duties as Agriculture Assistant under the control of Dholka Sub-Division governed by the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited. The petitioner was assigned to take note about the measurement in the measurement book No. 134 for several survey numbers situated at Sandhvi village for the year 1998. The work was undertaken through E.A.S. scheme for the year 1998. On 19.06.1998, the inspection was done by one Shri D.V. Rajpoot, Assistant Director (S.C.) and Shri P.B. Pramal, Regional Supervisor alongwith the present petitioner whereby, several pits were made. The respondent-authority showed 1056 pits whereas, 164 pits without bored found artificial and the amount to the tune of Rs.33,394/- was found to be misappropriated, without the same being sanctioned with the work order alongwith the budget estimate, followed by the amount, which was paid to the concerned workers. In view thereof, the chargesheet dated 31.07.1999 came to be issued, which is duly produced at Annexure-B. Followed by the chargesheet, which was served to the petitioner herein, several witnesses were examined as per the rules under the Gujarat State Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971 (for short “the Rules of 1971”) and accordingly, the departmental inquiry came to be conducted under Rules 9(2) and 13 of the Rules of 1971, combining two charges. The petitioner herein had replied to the charges by justifying that the petitioner is innocent.

7.1. One Shri C.K. Desai (I.A.S.) was appointed as inquiry officer vide order dated 10.02.2000 issued by the Managing Director, Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited. The report is duly produced at Annexure-C concluding that the charges stood proved.

7.2. By orders dated 27.08.2001 and 09.10.2001, the Joint Agricultural Director passed the order of reversion to the pay-scale of Rs.4500/- to Rs.7000/- with permanent effect for 7 years. The said orders are duly produced at Annexure E.

7.3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.08.2001 passed by the Joint Agricultural Director, the petitioner approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar by filing Appeal No. 280 of 2003, praying to set aside the order passed by the Director of Agricultural and further prayed for not to recover any amount from the petitioner for