Disciplinary charges must be specific and substantiated by relevant evidence; decisions based on unrelated facts or surmises are unsustainable.

ORDER :

SANJAY DWIVEDI, J.

Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning validity of orders dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P/6) and 04.07.2018 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority whereby after issuing the charge-sheet and conducting departmental enquiry, punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon him. The petitioner is assailing the orders mainly on the ground that the reply submitted by him to the charge-sheet issued and stand taken therein was not considered by the Disciplinary authority and also by the Appellate authority.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was only one charge levelled against the petitioner alleging misappropriation of fund relating to construction of toilets under the scheme of the Government. He has submitted that petitioner has filed the reply and taken a stand therein that the charge levelled against him was without any foundation and he has not committed any misappropriation of fund. As per the reply, whatever amount was sanctioned has been spent and as such, nothing was misappropriated. He has further submitted that petitioner got transferred from Gram Panchayat, Sewasani to Gram Panchayat, Baroda on 19.08.2014 but he was held responsible for the delay and illegality committed in the construction work which was continued even after transferring him to some other Gram Panchayat. He has further pointed out that in the enquiry though he has been held responsible for committing illegality and misappropriation of fund but the said amount i.e. Rs.26,200/- was returned by the then Sarpanch that too, after transferring the petitioner.

4. The Disciplinary authority while passing the final order has taken a different stand not relating to the charge levelled against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has been held responsible and charge found proved against him only because payment of Rs.55,000/- was made to one Aakash Traders on 10.05.2014 but even after 110 days, the construction of toilets was not completed and petitioner did not take any action to adjust the amount and the said amount of Rs.26,200/- though returned by the then Sarpanch after transferring the petitioner from that Gram Panchayat but that does not mean that petitioner could be given a clean chit to observe that he was not involved in the alleged irregularity. The Disciplinary authority has also observed in its order that though then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat has returned the amount of Rs.26,200/- vide Cheque No.013815 dated 28.01.2016 but that cheque was never deposited in the account of Gram Panchayat, Sewasani. He has submitted that all these transactions were not part of the charge and return of the amount i.e. Rs.26,200/- by the then Sarpanch in a proceeding initiated under Section 92 of the PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHINIYAM , 1993. He has further submitted that return of the said amount by the then Sarpanch was considered to be foundation of committing alleged irregularity even by the petitioner but this is neither sufficient nor cogent to substantiate the charge proved against the petitioner. According to him, no action was taken against the then Sarpanch and then Secretary of the respective Gram Pan