JAYANT PATEL - (1.) With the consent of learned advocates for parties when the Civil Application No.565/03 is taken up for final hearing Special Civil Applications are also taken up for final hearing.
(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as Dist.Inspector of Land Records. In the year 1980 inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner for various charges including that the petitioner had the lawfully wedded wife-Jyostnaben Kusumakar Bhundia and without getting divorce from the lawfully wedded wife the petitioner was having illicit relation with another lady Nalini and out of the said illicit relation a daughter is borne and therefore it was alleged that the said conduct of the petitioner is resulting into immorality and is of unbecoming of a Govt servant. Another charge was that the proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C.were initiated by wife-Jyotsnaben for maintenance and the petitioner did not intimate the same in time to the State Govt. The third charge was that in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.p.C. there was direction to deposit the amount of maintenance but the petitioner did not deposit the amount as ordered and even if there was a decree as per the order of the court and thereby the petitionher was debtor he has not intimated to the State Govt. The 4th charge was that inspite of the direction by the Settlement Commissioner to produce the orders of the court they are not produced.
(3.) The inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately after the inquiry officer's report second show cause notice was issued and final order, dated 30.11.1983 was passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner challenged the said order, dated 30.11.1983 of his removal from service by preferring Special Civil Application No.5876/83. The said special civil application as per order, dated 11.12.96 came to be allowed to the extent that it was found by the court that three documents were not supplied to the petitioner and therefore the court consequently passed the order which reads as under: "In the result this special civil application succeeds and the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 30.11.1983 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after furnishing the copies of those two documents and giving him an opportunity of producing his own defence. Thereafter, the matter may be decided afresh in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs." It further appears that thereafter the documents were supplied to the petitioner, however, it is case of the petitioner that all the documents were not supplied, but the perusal of the communication, copy whereof is at annexure "E", shows that that relevant extract of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and other material were supplied. It appears that in the Inquiry Officer's report, dated 20.9.99 as mentioned at para 4 of the said report on 27.8.99 opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine the witness, but, the petitioner did not avail of the said opportunity and it was found by the Inquiry Officer in the said report that it is proved that the petitioner is having illicit relation with one lady, namely, Nalini and out of said illicit relation one daughter child is borne and it was also found by the Inquiry Officer that no defence is submitted by the petitioner so far as charge Nos 3 & 4 are concerned and therefore they are also deemed as proved because the petitioner has admitted that there were proceedings of criminal court for maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer opined that charge Nos 1 to 4 are proved. 2nd show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.10.99 and the petitioner replied to the same as per his reply dated 15.10.99. The pertinent aspect is that even in the reply to the second show cause notice it is not even the case of the petitioner nor any statement has been made to the effect that the daughter is not borne out of the relation of the lady, namely, Nalini. Ultimately, on 19.8.2000 the disciplinary authority has reconsidered the matter and found that in view of the documentary proof of the hospital of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and Gulab Kunwarba Infant Welfare Association as proof of delivery and the names mentioned therein, it is proved that the petitioner is having llicit relation with Nalini and one daughter child is borne out of the said illicit relation. It was also found by the disciplinary authority that the charges in respect of proceedings of criminal court and the orders passed therein and non-intimation of the same to the competent authority are also proved. The disciplinary authority finally passed the order on the ground that the charges of immorality are proved and the petitioner has already retired from service from 30.6.95 and therefore the punishment of reduction in pension for five years is imposed upon the petitioner. The said order of the disciplinary authority dated 19.8.2000 is challenged in SCA No.11904/00 by the present petitioner.;