BABUBHAI JAGJIVANDAS PARMAR SECRETARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges the order of punishment awarded to him by the respondent - State of Gujarat vide its order dated 1 2/07/1999 by reducing him in rank from the office of the Secretary to the Government in the pay scale of Rs.18,400.00 to Rs.22,400.00 to Chief Engineer in the department of Narmada Water Resources & Water Distribution in the pay scale of Rs.16,000.00 to Rs.20,050.00 which is at Annexure `F' to the petition and consequently, order dated 13/07/1999 giving effect to that order of reverting the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer in the lower pay scale was made. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet dated 3rd February 1993 which contained in all six charges reproduced hereinbelow :-

(2.) The charges No. 1 to 3 are identical in terms with the charges No. 4 to 6 and they relate to the awards made in respect of two different contracts and the payment made to the contractor in pursuance of the acceptance of the award by the Government. The list of following documents was annexed with the chargesheet in support of the allegations made against the petitioner :-

(3.) The brief facts leading to this inquiry are that, having arisen some dispute in connection with two contracts in question, the disputes were referred to Arbitrator appointed by the Government and the awards in two cases were made by the Arbitrator on consent being granted by the officer representing the State before the Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, services of a lawyer were also obtained. The awards were made on 16/11/1986. The same having been filed in the Court for being made the rule of the court, the proceedings were pending in the Court. The orders to accept the award were issued in one case on 21/3/1987 and another on 8/04/1987 and the payment in pursuance thereof were made. The gravaman of the charges are that, notwithstanding that objections to the awards were presented in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 17/2/1987 and 19/2/1987 respectively and the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer, but still orders to accept the award were made on the basis of proposals not disclosing the fact of objections to the award and to pay the amount to the Ijaradar and further, by telephonic instructions, it was directed to immediately make the payment, which was done on 9th April 1987 to the Ijaradar. By these imputed acts of nondisclosure of filing objections and instruction to make immediate payment, Ijaradar was favoured and has resulted in economic loss to the State to the extent of award. The petitioner having been informed about the challenge to the award by the Executive Engineer, the proposal was made for approving the payment made to the Ijaradar without even stating about the fact that validity of awards have been challenged in the court and expeditious payment following acceptance of award, has caused financial loss to the Government. It was also alleged in the statement of allegations against the petitioner that though the case of Ijaradar was very weak, still from the side of the Government, no proper and full submissions were made and the petitioner failed in his duty to see from the side of the Government that proper submissions are made. These charges were subject matter of question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of award concerning one contract resulting in award of Rs.22,18,200.00 and question No.3, 4 and 5 were correspondingly related to another contracting resulting in award in the sum of Rs.11,94,400.00.