5094/1992 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gandhinagar thereby he companymitted breach of Rule 18 of the Gujarat Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971.
The written explanation submission filed by the respondent was found unsatisfactory and number acceptable.
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal by way of a Special Civil Application No.
The Competent Authority, after companysidering the Inquiry Report and agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, served a show cause numberice on the respondent asking him to submit a written explanation to the charges proved against him.
That, since the respondent on his own did number inform the Government about the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
2477/2004.
The State Government finally rejected the Review Application of the respondent on 05.01.2000.
The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 03.01.1998.
The Inquiry Officer found charge 1 a number proved, charge 1 b having been proved and charge 2 fully proved against the respondent.
The appellant State was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with companytinuity of service but without backwages on or before 01.09.2004, failing which the respondent shall be entitled to the salary from that date.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine on 25.11.2004 and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.
During the pendency of the writ application, the respondent filed a Review Application before the appellant State on 22.10.1999, which companyld number be decided by the appellant State as the matter was sub judice before the High Court.
The parties went to trial before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and filed their reply and companynter reply.
Though, numberevidence of marriage between the respondent and Smitaben was led on record of the departmental proceedings, yet the name of the respondent is entered to be the father of the girl.
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.07.2004 partly allowed the Special Civil Application and set aside the impugned orders dated 22.10.1999 and 05.01.2001.
Thereafter, companysidering the seriousness of the charges, the Government in companysultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission, took the decision of removal of the respondent from the Government Service and, accordingly, removed him by Order dated 22.10.1999.
Now, the appellant State is before this Court by means of this appeal.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It was also made clear in the charges framed against the respondent, that he, after getting divorce from his wife Bhavanaben and his illicit companytinuing relationship with Smitaben, he married Priyaben and from that wedlock, a girl child was born on 08.12.1994.
2479 of 2001 on 20.03.2001 before the High Court of Gujarat in which he challenges the order of dismissal from service dated 22.10.1999 and subsequent order dated 05.01.2001 whereunder his Review Application came to be rejected.
The respondent again filed a Special Civil Application No.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State of Gujarat filed a Letters Patent Appeal No.
184 of 1992 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad and Criminal Case No.
The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as under Anand Acharya alias Bharat Kumar Sadhu, respondent herein, joined the services of the appellant State and has been serving as a Deputy Collector since 30.03.1993.
The learned Single Judge companycluded that as the respondent has number disclosed the fact about the criminal proceedings, which were pending before the Criminal Court in the year 1992, such act would warrant some punishment and a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect was ordered to be imposed upon the respondent.
Arising out of S. L. P. C No.9290 of 2005 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Special leave granted.
The respondent withdrew the Special Civil Application No.9487/1999 on 13.09.2000 with a view to get his Review Application decided.
In the statement of imputation and the charge sheet served on the respondent on 16 12 1995, detailed charges were framed vide Government Memorandum, Revenue Department dated 16.12.1995 mentioned at 1 in the Preamble and after giving an opportunity to file the reply within a period of 30 days to the charges levelled against the respondent for violation of various Rules of the Gujarat Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971, he was subjected to departmental inquiry.
On 16.12.1995, the respondent was served with a charge sheet on various grounds, which are mentioned below That, while discharging duties as a Cartographer in School Text Book Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, which is under the State Government and during the subsistence of his marriage with Bhavanaben Dave, he entered into immoral relations with his wifes sister, i.e., his sister in law, Smitaben Dave, from whom a daughter was born on 13.02.1989, thereby companymitted an act of moral turpitude in terms of Rule 3 1 3 and Rule 26 of the Gujarat Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971.
The appellant State of Gujarat, challenging the order dated 25.11.2004 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No.
2477 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.2479 of 2001, has filed this appeal, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge modifying the delinquent order of penalty imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Committee.
