SCA/524419/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5244 of 1994 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 ? ========================================================= D H NINAMA, ACCOUNTS OFFICER - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK C RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 05/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 04.03.1994, passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the service. SCA/524419/1994 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The petitioner was serving as Accounts Officer with the respondent. On 25.10.1989, the District Panchayat, Banaskantha filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on the ground of alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 22.02.1991 and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. On completion of the departmental proceedings, the respondent issued notice dated 28.06.1993, whereby the petitioner was asked to make a representation within 15 days from the date of the said inquiry report. In response to the said letter, the petitioner requested the respondent to stay the proceedings of the departmental inquiry, on the ground that the criminal proceedings were going on before the trial Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent without considering the reply, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 04.03.1994. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the inquiry officer has not considered the specific contention regarding non-supply of the material documents asked for the purpose of defence and has not SCA/524419/1994 3/4 JUDGMENT assigned any reasons for not considering the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations of misappropriation is false inasmuch as the receipt obtained from the representative of the Mehsana District Co-op. Society for the amount in question was not at all produced before the inquiry officer by the department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008) 9 SCC pg. 31. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-supply of the material documents. From the record it appears that the petitioner in his defence reply has admitted that he has submitted the statement on the basis of the record supplied by the respondent as well as the record supplied along with the charge sheet dated 22nd February, 1991. It also appears that the petitioner while discharging his duties as Accounts Officer has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,70,429.95 paise and made payment to the Mehsana District Co-operative Society without following the procedure and/or without taking the approval from the higher authority and thereby was found guilty in the departmental proceedings initiated against him. It also SCA/524419/1994 4/4 JUDGMENT appears that there are other charges levelled against the petitioner with regard to false documents. However, the contention with regard to non-supply of the material documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to show that non-furnishing of the material documents caused prejudice to him. Looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the respondent is just and proper. 4.1. Thus, considering the facts of the case, in my opinion, the respondent was completely justified in dismissing the petitioner from service. Hence, the petition does not deserve to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. 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/