Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to evaluating the inquiry process's fairness, with the onus generally on the authority to establish charges against the employee.

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondents.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the appellant- original petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 21266/2007.

3. Brief facts of this appeal are as follows:

3.1 The appellant joined the service on 05.03.1983 as direct recruit Store Keeper and in due course, he was promoted to the post of Forman (Class- III) on 24.11.1992. At the relevant point of time, the appellant was also given charge of In-charge Principal (Class-II).

3.2 It is the case of the appellant that the charge-sheet was issued on 18.10.2003 for the charges which were denied by the appellant by defense statement dated 17.04.2004. The appellant had submitted his defense statement before the Inquiry Officer on 13.07.2005.

3.3 One Mr. C.D.Patel was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 15.09.2004 who submitted inquiry report on 01.08.2005 holding that the charges levelled against the appellant are partly proved. It was held that out of seven charges against the appellant, two charges being Charge No.2 pertaining to the purchases made by the appellant from M/s. Wagheshwari Traders, a Proprietorship Firm of wife of the appellant and Charge No.3 pertaining to the issue of malpractice of making purchases from M/s. Wagheshwari Traders by creating false rates of false Ceiling and Kota Marble Fitting in Computer Batch of the Institution were held to be proved.

3.4 Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 12.08.2005 was issued along with the inquiry report to the appellant for imposing the penalty. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice on 03.09.2005. The Disciplinary Authority issued the punishment order dated 14.09.2005 and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal challenging the order of punishment which was rejected by order dated 14.06.2006. The appellant thereafter challenged the order of the Tribunal along with order of Disciplinary Committee before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 21266/2007 which is dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.02.2024.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the appellant-original petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report (Page 119 of the Paper-Book) has held that there is no malpractice committed by the appellant except for the fact that the appellant has undertaken the purchases from Firm of his wife.

4.1 It was further submitted that the only lapse on the part of the appellant was not issuing prior intimation to the authority before making purchases from the Firm of his wife.

4.2 It was further submitted that the appellant has been punished by order dated 31.05.2005 passed by the Director, Employment and Training in a separate proceeding by stoppage of two annual increments without future effect for breach of Rules 3(1)(1), 3(1)(2) and 3(1)(3) read with Rule 15(2) and 15(3) of the Gujarat State Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971.

4.3 It was therefore, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has passed a very harsh order of compulsory retirement in spite of the meritorious service of more than 28 years put in by the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant has accepted that the purchases have been made from the Firm- M/s. Wagheshwari Traders, Junagadh which was of the ownership of wife of the appellant but there is no evidence on recor