SCA/395620/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3956 of 2006 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 ? ========================================================= M T PARMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJRAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AS SUPEHIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the respondent, whereby penalty of SCA/395620/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT deduction of Rs.100/- per month for three years from the pension amount is imposed upon the petitioner. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The petitioner was serving as a Senior Clerk with the respondent no. 2. On 29.10.2003, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet, for the alleged irregularities committed by him while discharging his duties. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, his services came to an end On 31.10.2003. In connection with the said charge sheet, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. On completion of the departmental proceedings, the respondent vide order dated 06.12.2005, imposed penalty of deducting an amount of Rs.100/- per month for three years from the pension amount of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner, majority of the charges were proved. The petitioner was found guilty of hiring his personal vehicle for Government use, without prior sanction and had also purchased a vehicle without taking permission from the competent authority. The petitioner had also committed an SCA/395620/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT irregularity in the deduction of Professional Tax for the year 2000-01. Thus, looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, in my opinion, 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, in my opinion, the respondent was completely justified in imposing the punishment of deduction of Rs.100/- per month for three years from the pension amount. Hence, the petition does not deserve to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.0. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/