Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under Section 67 of the Gujarat Nagarpalika Adhiniyam (Gujarat Municipalities Act), 1963 and under the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs.

“A. This petition be admitted and allowed.

B. By exercising powers under Article 226 r/w. Article 227 of Constitution of India, Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 30-3-2011 passed by respondent no.1 herein (Annexure A) and be further pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 2-11-2010 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure B) and alternatively,

Your Lordships may be pleased by quashing and setting aside both the said orders Annexure A and B, the matter may be referred back for fresh consideration to respondent no.2 authority as both authorities have passed orders without considering the submissions and defence made by the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice.

C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution and further operation, of the order dated 30-3-2011 (Annexure A) and the order dated 2-11-2010 (Annexure B) passed by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 resepctively.

D. Any other relief that may be deemed fit may also be kindly granted.

2. Brief facts of the present petition is that the petitioner is qualified Engineer working with Gujarat Housing Board since 21.03.1984 and he put on deputation for a period of one year and appointed as Chief Officer of Balasinor Nagarpalika. That as there was political rivalry amongst the members of Nagarpalika, false and frivolous allegations were made against the elected members and the petitioner and he came back at Gujarat Housing Board since 28.05.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was deputed for a period of one and half year in the office of the Superintendent of Stamp Duty, Gujarat State at Gandhinagar and again he came back to Gujarat Housing board in the year of 2007 and since then, he was discharging his duty in Gujarat Housing Board as Assistant Engineer. That since the appointment of the petitioner and till date he has completed approximately 27 years of service and except one year as Chief Officer of Nagarpalika on deputation and one and half year as Superintendent in Stamp Duty Department, for rest of the period, he has discharged his duty as Engineer in Gujarat Housing Board.

2.1 The service record of the petitioner was good, however, he was falsely implicated in an inquiry because of political rivalry between two groups of elected members of Balasinor Nagarpalika. The respondent no.2 had initiated proceedings under the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971 and passed an order on 02.11.2010 whereby the order of recovery of Rs.1,58,720/- was made and further ordered that said amount shall be recovered in 7 equal installments of Rs.22,675/- each and two future increments of the petitioner to be withheld with future effect and Rs.15,120/- has been recovered by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,890/- per month, till the petitioner’s salary upto July 2011.

2.2 That petitioner had preferred an appeal under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971 before the Chairman, Gujarat Housing Board - the appellate authority praying for stay of the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, however, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Mr.Yatin Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P. K. Shukla, learned counsel for Mr.Pranav Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondents at length.

4. Mr.Yatin Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in