SCA/1197320/2001 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11973 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= HASMUKHLAL MOHANLAL PANDYA - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR MG NAGARKAR for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29th August, 2001. SCA/1197320/2001 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The petitioner was working as a Store Keeper with the respondent. The petitioner due to some personal reasons, vide letter dated 31st March, 1998 sought Voluntary Retirement from service with effect from 30th June, 1998 and also requested the respondent to pay all the retirement dues. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent vide letter dated 30th July, 1998 informed the petitioner to resume the duties again till his application for voluntary retirement is sanctioned. 2.3. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite repeated requests to pay the retirement dues, the respondent has not paid it. Since no retirement dues were paid by the respondent, the petitioner submitted an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity. 2.4. The authority after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, directed the respondent authority to pay the amount of gratuity to the SCA/1197320/2001 3/4 JUDGMENT petitioner. 2.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 31/1999 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing the parties, rejected the appeal vide order dated 13th March, 2000. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1280/1999 before this Court, whereby this Court directed the respondent to initiate inquiry against the petitioner. On 14th October, 1999, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, for the alleged irregularities committed while discharging his duties as Store Keeper. On completion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. It is the case of the petitioner that after a lapse of one year, the petitioner was served with the final show cause notice. On 29th August, 2001, the petitioner was served with the impugned order of punishment whereby, respondent no. 3 had imposed a punishment of deduction of Rs.500/- per month from the pension up to five years. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is SCA/1197320/2001 4/4 JUDGMENT evident from the record that there is a serious charge of misappropriation of amount levelled against the petitioner. Thus, looking to the allegation levelled against the petitioner, though on completion of inquiry the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, the respondent served the petitioner with the final show cause notice since the petitioner has misappropriated the public money. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. 3.1. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent was completely justified in imposing the punishment of deduction of Rs.500/- per month from the pension. Hence, the petition does not deserve to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/