Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Both the parties have placed reliance on the case law, to which reference will be made, as and when required hereinafter, at an appropriate stage.

8. This Court, has dispassionately threadbare heard the learned counsel Mr.Gandhi, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Dabhi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, who in course of their submissions have also taken to the exsertion of entire documentary evidence and relevant proposition of law arising in this matter of service jurisprudence. The case law relied upon by both the sides has been extensively examined, the provisions of BCSR, as well as, departmental guidelines, bulletins and manual are also examined and taken into consideration.

16. It is in this context, the respondent authority after serving show cause notice, framed the charge sheet against the petitioner interalia mentioning that there was non observance of the established and prescribed procedure for valuation of the property to be auctioned for the recovery of sales tax dues and payment for fixity of the upset prize. The petitioner could not satisfactorily explain the reasons for reduction of the value and the resultant upset prize of the said property, which was to be put for public auction for recovery of sales tax dues, outstanding since very long from 1980-87 from Rs.8,50,000/= to Rs.4,00,000/=. A faint attempt was sought to be made in course of the proceedings in the departmental inquiry that since the property was closed for many years, the valuation was lowered down and reduced. The evaluation of the upset prize, which came to be fixed, whether or otherwise, on the basis of the report of the Talati cum Mantri, on 27.11.1996 came to be reduced less by Rs. 4,50,000/= within two years time, without any reasonable and logical ground and reason on record and it is in this context, the Department's allegation that the petitioner, who has been a responsible officer of the Sales Tax Department and public servant, not only failed to follow the requisite procedure and indulging irregularity but also violated settled principles of fixation of the upset prize and the valuation of the property to be put in a public action and it is in this context, the Department relied on a Manual/ Bulletin No.9 from page 129 to 131 to show that as to how the valuation and the fixation of the upset prize was prescribed to be undergone and be followed. The charge that the petitioner violated the provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1971, the respondent authority ,therefore, charged that the petitioner has committed breach of provisions of Section 3(i) sub rule (1) and (2) of Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct ) Rules, 1971, and since the petitioner had retired on 29.2.2000 on superannuation, and the departmental inquiry, which was initiated during his service, could not be completed till his retirement, it was directed and decided to continue the further proceedings of the inquiry by following the provisions of Rule 189 and 189-A of the BCSR.

17. Since most of the factual aspects were no longer in controversy, the department was found not necessary to examine any witness as nothing materially was required to be proved by leading the oral evidence of an officer or of the witness of the department. It cannot be said that the provisions of Rule 189 and 189-A of the BCSR are not followed or the requisite formalities under the Rules came to be violated.

It is also found from the record that the charges framed against the delinquent for dereliction of his duty in indulging in misconduct and creating such circumstantial situational reality in the backdrop of the facts established on the record and later on trying to show that the reduction of the upset prize and valuation of the property of the defaulter to be placed in the public auction for the recovery of arrears of sales tax tax dues from Rs.8,50,000/- to only Rs.4,00,000/- less by Rs. 4,50,000/= and other circumstantial evidence and events led to the belief and doubt to the disciplinary authority that the impugned action of the petitioner was such, it could be considered as dishonest and affecting integrity of the officer.

22. Incidentally, it may be stated that the disciplinary proceedings initiated and continued after retirement and resultant effect on pensionary benefits and gratuity, provisions have been laid down in Rules 189-A and 189-B of the BCSR, which have been referred hereinabove in course of the discussion of this judgment. However, it will be also interesting to state that Rule 189 provides that good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Government is empowered to withheld, or withdraw or reduce the pension or any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct, either during or after the completion of the service of course, subject to order of this effect, as required and as provided in Note 1 to Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, so that the power of Government to reduce pension or amount of gratuity is very well laid down. Nonetheless, it is found from the record that the reduction of pension by Rs.1000/= per month for a spell of five years from the pensionary amount of the petitioner are after observing, the necessary procedure prescribed in the BCSR and in terms of provisions of Rule 189-A and in light of the backdrop of the undisputed facts and the correspondence documentary evidence exchanged between the officers and the delinquent petitioner, it is amply clear that the disciplinary authority after holding the departmental inquiry, following the requisite and prescribed procedure and afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has imposed permissible punishment, which is challenged in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On correct appraisal of the entire factual profile and principles of relevant proposition of law and submissions, this Court is unable to uphold any one of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. There is no fit and appropriate case for interference with the impugned Notification and order imposing the penalty for punishment of reduction of pension at Rs.1000/- per month for a spell of five years in view of the proved misconduct, dereliction of duty and the charges held proved. Petition therefore deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. However, without any order as to costs. Rule is discharged.