Against the said dismissal order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Thus, the amount of Rs.2,54,180.00 was more than the known source of income of the accused leading to the presumption that the said amount was obtained by him by illegal and companyrupt means.
CRIMINAL CASE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT The Director of Anti Corruption Bureau had entrusted the enquiry to Mr. V.B. Raval, Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kachchh at Bhuj.
The appellant would number superannuate in February, 1986.
Against the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred L.P.A. and raised the relevant companytentions.
On the basis of the same charges and the evidence, the Department passed an order of dismissal on 21.10.1982 whereas the Criminal Court acquitted him on 30.1.2002.
The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted.
On the basis of the said report of Mr. V.B. Raval, his successor P.I. Mr. H.D. Sharma lodged the criminal companyplaint against the appellant in Special Case No.
Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department issued a show cause numberice dated 4.6.1980 to the appellant to show cause against the proposed dismissal.
As per the Department, the movable and immovable properties were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The appellant replied to the show cause numberice by his letter dated 27.9.1980.
On the other side, the total expenditure, savings and movable and immovable properties of the accused was Rs.5,29,509.14.
The Division Bench dismissed the L.P.A. by companyfirming the order of the learned single Judge.
by Prof. H.W.R. Wade as an authority wherein under the Heading findings, evidence and jurisdiction, the author has discussed finding of fact no evidence principle.
The respondent by order dated 21.10.1982 passed an order of dismissal from the service as punishment.
Against that, total expenses of Sh.
15.10.1982.
But by then, the appellant had retired, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of dismissal without back wages.
However, as the Criminal Court acquitted the appellant on 30.1.2002 and until such acquittal, there was numberreason or ground to hold the dismissal to be erroneous, any relief monetarily can be only w.e.f.
They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the companyclusion that the charges were established against the appellant.
The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a companysideration of the entire evidence, came to the companyclusion that numbersearch was companyducted number was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant.
The learned single Judge companycluded that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant and dismissed the petition.
For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the judgment and order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil appln.Brief facts The appellant joined the service in 1953 as an Overseer.
A departmental enquiry was ordered and as per Departmental Enquiry Reported dated 31.3.1980, the appellant was found guilty of the charge.
The appellant has put in 26 years of service with the respondent i.e. from 1953 1979.
It showed that the total income of the accused out of his salary, interest, rent and insurance policies etc.
The said decision is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
Though the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and recorded some findings in favour of the appellant, the finding rendered that the appellant was guilty for the alleged charges.
In the departmental enquiry, the Government appointed Mr. V.B. Raval, who was the Investigating Officer in the Anti Corruption Bureau as the Presenting Officer.
30.1.2002.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
of Sh.
The appellant submitted his explanation on 15.5.1979 and denied the allegations as well as charges made in the charge sheet.
The charges made against the appellant in the departmental enquiry is reproduced hereunder That total income from wages, interest, house rent, insurance policy amount etc.
from April, 1953 to June 1978 was Rs.2,75,328.00.
The appellant was regularly submitting his property return showing all his movable and immovable properties.
Thereafter, the Government ordered appellants dismissal from service w.e.f.
By its impugned final judgment, the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. filed by the appellant herein.
8910 OF 2004 Dr. AR.
1085 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein.
The appellant would be entitled to pension .
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
In the result, the learned single Judge rejected the writ petition and on the same principle, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have also affirmed the view expressed by the learned single Judge.
However, the High Court rejected the submission made by the learned companynsel for the appellant on the ground that the witnesses examined by the appellant are number independent witnesses of having numberinterest and that they are very interested witnesses as they are very close relatives and in laws of the appellant and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer has rightly examined the version of those witnesses with care and caution and has rightly number accepted the same as unimpeachable evidence in the absence of companycrete documentary evidence.
Thus, an amount of Rs.2,54,180.00 has been found very much in excess than his known and legal source of income and it appears that the said amount has been earned by him through bribe, companyruption and illegal gratification and, therefore, he is responsible liable for the breach of Rule 3 1 of Gujarat Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971.
Tank including expenses, saving, movable as well as immovable properties, companyes to Rs.5,29,509.14.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.8.2003 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The Anti Corruption Bureau carried out an investigation against the appellant and submitted a report and on the basis of the said report, a charge sheet dated 20.2.1979 was issued alleging that the appellant had illegally accumulated the excess income by way of gratification.
A reading of both the charges would clearly go to show that both the charges are grounded upon the same set of facts and evidence and also pertains to the known source of income of the accused and the presumption raised that that the said amount was obtained by him by illegal and companyrupt means.
Mr. V.B. Raval had enquired into the matter and submitted an Enquiry Report on 8.9.1979.
On 15.10.1982 dismissal order was passed.
As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely the raid companyducted at the appellants residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.
In the Enquiry proceedings, the Department examined the relatives of the appellant, namely, the wife, father in law, brother in law and the brother of the appellant.
The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a companyy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to the proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report at the end of the enquiry and held that the appellant had property disproportionate to the known source of income which, according to the Enquiry Officer, shows that the appellant has received illegal gratification and the charge against the appellant about the illegal possession was proved.
Tank for the period from the year 1953 till June 1978 companyes to Rs.2,75,328.00.
