Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and that the impugned orders are passed almost after a delay of seven years as the authority took seven years to conclude the departmental inquiry, which should be concluded within 180 days as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, 1971;

and that as per Government Resolution dated 28.07.1993 that in cases where a recommendation of the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('the GPSC' for short) is required, to be taken within 30 days from the receipt of such recommendation, but in the present case, the recommendation was asked for on 15.09.2016 and the GPSC has replied on 28.11.2017 and it is beyond 30 days; and that number of inquiries initiated against the petitioner on the same day, which itself shows the modus operandi of the respondents.

(i) 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 247858 - Harivadan Parshottambhai Patel versus State of Gujarat

(ii) 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65706 - Chairman/ Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., versus Ram Gopal 5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Roopal R. Patel for the Gujarat Public Service Commission has submitted that the role of respondent No.4 - GPSC is limited that has to be discharged in tendering advice to the Government on the aspect of quantum of punishment that can be imposed upon the petitioner, taking into consideration the gravity of proved charges against him; and that on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, as per the Rule, advice of the GPSC was sought for by the Disciplinary Authority on the aspect of quantum of punishment; and that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the charges levelled against the the petitioner, little dereliction and negligence in duty, financial losses caused to the Government, lack of honesty in performing the duties and keeping in view the valid reasons provided by the Disciplinary Authority for imposing of punishment, since the punishment proposed by the department did not felt to be adequate by the GPSC, the GPSC tendered its advice and imposed punishment in question accordingly; and that it is imperative to consult the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13723/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined GPSC in respect of matters concerning discipline in view of Article 320(3)(C) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 12 of the Gujarat Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation), 1960.

5.2 She has further submitted that albeit, there is no method fixed so as to be followed by the GPSC qua Class-I and Class-II Officers, where, against whom, after holding inquiry by way of instruction, Resolution or Circular, Government has sought an advice; and that the GPSC in its discretion and keeping in view the merits of the case, either conquer or advice to increase or decrease the punishment as proposed by the Government after taking into consideration the principles of natural justice, rules prescribed in connection with the disciplinary inquiry, adequate opportunity provided to the delinquent, for his defense, financial loss caused to the Government, breach of Government's norms, seriousness of charges and validity of punishment, etc.; and that the role of the GPSC is not that of appellate, but, is in the nature of advisory, which may be accepted or rejected by the Government, and as such, is not binding to the Government;

and that the time period prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 20.07.1993 is a guideline, which is not mandatory in nature; and that the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment in view of Rule 24 of the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13723/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Rules, 2002; and that the GPSC is a formal party in these petitions, as the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the GPSC. She has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.