IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17796 of 2011 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

=============================================

	1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see t he judgment ?	NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?		NO
	3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the j udgment ?	NO
	4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as t o the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

=============================================

NATVARBHAI DOSALJI BAROT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO THE SECRETARY & 1 other(s)

=============================================

Appearance:

MR HARISH J SONI(5142) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 01/08/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT

1.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 01-09-2010 (Annexure-A). By the impugned order, pursuant to departmental inquiry against the petitioner, the order came to be passed of deduction of an amount of Rs.1500/- for the period of 10 years from the pension of the petitioner.

2.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that entire inquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order are required to be set aside as the inquiry has proceeded on the ground of the petitioner having given a decision in his capacity as a Quasi Judicial Officer and if there is an error in his decision as a Quasi Judicial Officer, the same cannot be treated to be misconduct.

3.Learned Advocate for the petitioner thereafter submitted that there is no charge against the petitioner for any malafide in undertaking the procedure as laid down by law and passing necessary orders in his capacity as City Survey Superintendent nor is there any distant charge of the petitioner having accepted any financial benefits or bribe for the purpose of passing the order. In absence of any such charge, merely passing of order in his quasi judicial capacity, should not be treated as misconduct.

4.Learned Advocate for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the petitioner was not the only officer of the Revenue involved, but his colleague was also alleged to have participated. However, against him, though according to the petitioner, act attributed was of gross nature or at-least of higher gravity than that of the petitioner, still punishment inflicted upon such co-deliquent was only to the extent of withholding of one increment and therefore, in terms of parity also, punishment inflicted to the petitioner was quite disproportionate.

5.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that the petitioner had demanded certain documents, which according to the petitioner, were relevant. However, out of the demanded documents, only certain documents were given to the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner was not able to sufficiently defend his case in the departmental inquiry.

6.Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of K. R. Joshi v/s. State of Gujarat dated 10-02-2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.4472 of 2008, wherein according to the petitioner, in identical facts situation, the Court has set aside the order of punishment by holding that the petitioner therein a Mamlatdar had acted in his quasi judicial capacity and passed an order, which inquiry had caused loss of premium to the State Government and such decision was contrary to the provisions of Tenancy Act. It is submitted that in the present case also, the petitioner has passed the order to the best of his ability by taking into consideration the facts of the case. According to the petitioner, decision taken by the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document