S.T. Sutaria vs State of Gujarat and Another

A.L. Dave, J.—The Appellant challenges order passed on 19.02.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 12397 of 2009 dismissing the petition. The petition was filed to challenge judgment and order dated 30.08.2008 of Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No. 300 of 2005, whereby appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed on the ground that no reason was made out to interfere with the order made in exercise of its power by the disciplinary authority.

Facts: The Petitioner was served with chargesheet while he was serving as a Mining Supervisor and instead of holding departmental inquiry, disciplinary action against him was culminated by order dated 24.11.2005 by imposing minor penalty of stoppage of three increments without future effect. The order states that the authorities had taken into consideration the written statement of the Petitioner besides other relevant aspects on record and he was found to be guilty of misconduct of lack of devotion to duty and behaviour not befitting a Government servant.

The only issue agitated before the learned Single Judge by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that once chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner, disciplinary authority was required to conduct a proper and full inquiry in terms of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and that having not been done, impugned order imposing punishment was required to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Same is the only argument advanced before us.

There is no dispute about the fact that for imposing minor penalty no inquiry is required to be conducted. Learned Counsel has relied on Rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 which reads as under:

Procedure for imposing minor penalties:

(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in items [1, 2 to 3] of Rule 6 shall be passed except after-

(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour or of any culpable act or omission, on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal.

(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in the Sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 9, in every case in which the Disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.

(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under Clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under, Clause (b) into consideration.

(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour or of any culpable act or omission and

(e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.

Learned Counsel has emphasized on Sub-clause (1)(b) to make good his case that no penalty could have been imposed except after holding inquiry in the manner laid down in the Sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 9, in every case in which the Disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary. He has emphasized on words ''in every case in which the Disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary''. According to learned Counsel Mr. Vyas, that opinion was formed when chargesheet was issued and therefore, in light of this provision, no order imposing penalty could have been passed without holding inquiry.

It is not possible to agree with the submission made by learned Counsel Mr. Vyas for the reason that if Sub-rule (1) is read with Clause (b) what emerges is that no order imposing on Government servant any of the penalties specified in the items (1), (2) to (3) of Rule 6 shall be passed except after holding inquiry etc. Rule 11 requires holding inquiry only in case where proposed penalty to be imposed is under Rule 6, which is not the case here. Authorities have considered the reply filed by the Appellant and came to the conclusion that no major penalty is required to be imposed and only minor penalty is required to be imposed.

We do not find any substance in the appeal, the appeal must fail, stands dismissed. No costs.

As the appeal is dismissed, Civil Application is disposed of.