Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Narshibhai Mekwan vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/23105/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23105 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
GOVINDBHAI NARSHIBHAI MEKWAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR D K TRIVEDI(5283) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 04/08/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondents.
(2) At the outset, learned advocate for the
petitioner has submitted that the impugned order
dated 02.12.2019 suffers from an illegality since
the reply dated 24.04.2019 to the show cause
notice, which was issued to the petitioner on
09.04.2019, is not considered while passing the
impugned order. He has submitted that the
petitioner was serving as a Gujarati Typist in the
C/SCA/23105/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2021
respondent department and after rendering 34 years
of service, he retired from the post of Mines
Supervisor on reaching superannuation on
31.01.1999. It is submitted that the petitioner was
embroiled in a corruption case and by the judgement
and order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Special
Judge (ACB), Rajkot, the petitioner was convicted
for the offence punishable under the provision of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Corruption
Act). It is submitted that the appeal against the
said conviction is still pending before this Court.
He has submitted that after his conviction, the
respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice
dated 09.04.2019 proposing 100% cut in pension,
which was contested by the petitioner by filing a
reply on 24.04.2019. It is submitted that by the
impugned order dated 02.12.2019, the punishment of
100% cut in pension has been imposed upon the
petitioner, which is under challenge.
(3) Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the
impugned order may not be disturbed, as the same is
premised on the conviction of the petitioner in the
corruption case.
(4) This court has perused the impugned order
dated 02.12.2019, whereby the penalty of 100% cut
in pension has been imposed upon the petitioner.
C/SCA/23105/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2021
(5) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
convicted for the offence punishable under the
provisions of the Corruption Act vide judgment and
order dated 07.03.2018. Pursuant to the aforesaid
conviction, the respondent authorities issued a
show-cause notice dated 9.04.2019 calling upon the
petitioner as to why the punishment of 100% cut in
pension may not be imposed upon him under the
Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. The
petitioner accordingly, gave the reply to such
show-cause notice on 24.04.2019.
(6) A perusal of the impugned order dated
02.12.2019 reveals that the reply to the show-cause
notice, which was filed by the petitioner, has been
absolutely ignored. Though in the preamble of the
impugned order at Sr. No.07, the show cause notice
dated 09.04.2019 is referred, however, the reply to
show cause notice dated 24.04.2019 is missing.
(7) In the considered opinion of this Court, the
impugned order suffers from non-application of mind
and suffers from illegality since the reply to the
show-cause notice, which was filed by the
petitioner raising various contentions, has been
ignored. The entire exercise of issuing the show
cause notice seeking the explanation of the
petitioner will be a futile, if the reply to such
notice is not considered. The respondent authority
was required to deal with all the contentions
C/SCA/23105/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2021
raised by the petitioner in his show cause notice
Thus, the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(8) Thus, the respondents are directed to pass
fresh order, after taking into consideration the
representation / reply dated 24.04.2019 of the
petitioner, which was filed pursuant to the show-
cause notice dated 09.04.2019. It will also be open
for the petitioner to file further submissions, if
he so desires in support of his reply, and the same
may also be dealt with by the respondent
authorities while passing the final order. Such
orders shall be passed within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of writ of this
order, .since it is reported by the learned
advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is
80 years of age. It is further clarified that the
grant of consequential benefits will be subject to
the final outcome of the fresh order.
(9) The present petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Bhavesh-{PPS]*
