ABICHANDANI - (1.)The petitioner, Ex-Mamlatdar, who has since retired with effect from 31-7-1980, has challenged the impugned order imposing penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative future effect on him.
(2.)At the relevant time the petitioner was working as Mamlatdar, Pardi and was chargesheeted on 5-2-1975 on an allegation that the petitioner and one Mr. Nayak, Deputy Mamlatdar, Pardi were guilty of committing gross irregularities in disposal of 15 cases under the Record of Rights Rules and thereby showing carelessness and bias in the performance of their duties. The details of the irregularities were given in the statement of imputations which are set out in the inquiry report. The gross irregularities in disposal of cases under Record of Rights Rules alleged were that no Rojkams of proceedings were made; no notices were issued to the tenants; the applicant-tenants were not given opportunity to cross-examine the landlord or their witnesses; though the landlords were not staying at the village, they were not asked to produce the evidence as to how were they personally cultivating the land and the statements of landlords were recorded behind the back of tenants. The competent authority after considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer agreed with them holding that the charges against the petitioner, Mr. Nayak and one Mr. Kapadia were partly proved and imposed penalty of withholding of 3 increments with future effect on the petitioner.
(3.)It was contended by Mr. R. N. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no misconduct proved against the petitioner and therefore no penalty could have been levied. He further argued that joint inquiry conducted against the 3 delinquents had caused prejudice to the petitioner. He further submitted that assuming that there was misconduct, punishment of withholding 3 increments with cumulative effect was unduly harsh. He submitted that ends of justice will be met if the punishment was reduced to two increments without cumulative effect.