Harishkumar Kantilal Joshi vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 6027 Guj

                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




        C/LPA/1351/2022                         ORDER DATED: 18/08/2023

                                                                                undefined




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                   R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1351 of 2022
                 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1210 of 2017
    ==========================================================
                          HARISHKUMAR KANTILAL JOSHI
                                       Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
    ==========================================================
    Appearance:
    MR JEET B KARIA(11991) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
    MR K.M.ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
    ==========================================================
       CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
              AGARWAL
              and
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
                                  Date : 18/08/2023
                                   ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition holding that no case for interference is made out, inasmuch as, the appellant has been found guilty of charges of financial misappropriation after holding a departmental inquiry.

2. It is sought to be argued by Shri Jeet Karia, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has wrongly been implicated in the charge of financial misappropriation, inasmuch as, the only role of the appellant was to sign the cheques which were prepared on the basis of the vouchers signed by the superior authorities. It is argued that there was no option before the appellant but to issue cheques under his signature being incharge of the Account Officer, once vouchers for payment had been signed by the superior authorities.

3. We find inherent fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, which is sought to be made for the first time

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2023

undefined

before us in appeal. Before the learned single Judge, the main ground to assail the decision of the disciplinary authority was that the act of disciplinary authority in making recovery as also imposing minor penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, amounted to double jeopardy. This argument had been dealt with by the learned single Judge to hold that since it is a case wherein pecuniary loss has been caused to the department, the recovery of loss caused by the petitioner, cannot amount to double jeopardy, inasmuch as penalty has been awarded on conclusion of the departmental inquiry for the misconduct committed by the appellant.

4. Insofar as the role of the appellant in the entire act is concerned, no plausible argument had been made before the learned single Judge. We may further record that there is categorical finding that the appellant was guilty of issuing Demand Drafts for more than once in one case and cancelling the same after the amount thereof were withdrawn. The findings returned by the inquiry officer after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellant, approved by the disciplinary authority, cannot be upturned in exercise of the limited power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No flaw in the decision making process could be pointed out. No other ground has been pressed.

5. The Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) Mansi