Gujarat HC Refuses To Grant Relief To Tax Inspector Accused Of Misconduct And Misappropriation Of Funds Of Nagarpalika

The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that when the service of an worker is dismissed in end result of disciplinary inquiry on account of misconduct, the plea moved by him for regularization of the interval of suspension can’t be thought of in isolation.

It added that for the reason that Petitioner had challenged the dismissal earlier than the Excessive Courtroom, the 2 proceedings will go hand in hand.

The Courtroom shouldn’t be inclined to entertain this petition because the declare of the petitioner close to the regularization of the interval of suspension as prayed for now earlier than this Courtroom, can’t be examined in isolation, pending the problem to the order of dismissal which the petitioner has already made in a separate petition,Justice AY Kogje mentioned.

The Courtroom was coping with a plea moved by a Tax Inspector, previously employed within the Karamsad Municipality, suspended from service for allegations of significant misconduct and misappropriation of funds. In the end, he was dismissed from service.

The Petitioner-Inspector had sought that his order of suspension of 2014 be declared unlawful, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposite to the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Providers (Self-discipline and Enchantment) Guidelines, 1971. Additional, he prayed for full again wages for interval of suspension. It was proven that the Excessive Courtroom, vide an interim order of 2017, had directed reinstatement of the Petitioner and due to this fact, he was entitled to reinstatement within the on the spot case.

Per contra, the Nagarpalika confirmed that in its interim order, the Excessive Courtroom had granted liberty for conducting departmental inquiry, as a consequence of which, he was he was held responsible and dismissed from service. Towards this, the Petitioner had filed a separate petition which was pending. Thus, it was argued that the current petition ought to not be entertained for the reason that Courtroom should resolve the order of dismissal handed by the Nagarpalika.

Noting that the Petitioner was suspended by invoking Sec 48 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, the Courtroom discovered that the Govt Committee had narrated 11 fees towards the Petitioner and an inquiry was initiated towards him. Until the time the inquiry was over, the Petitioner was ordered to be suspended. Moreover, the costs towards the Petitioner for misconduct, negligence and misappropriation of funds had been grave in nature which had triggered monetary loss to the Nagarpalika. Additional, the order of dismissal of August 2021 was a topic of problem vide a Particular Civil Utility which was pending.

Therefore, the Excessive Courtroom was not inclined to entertain the petition because the declare concerning regularisation of the interval of suspension couldn’t be examined in isolation for the reason that problem of the order of dismissal was already pending in a separate petition. Consequently, the Excessive Courtroom vacated the interim reduction which was granted vide an earlier order.

Case No.: C/SCA/5372/2016


Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Judgment

Supply hyperlink

By Samy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.