S. K. Kajal., v. The Chief Executive Officer Directorate of Vigilance, Khadi and Village Industries and 2 Ors.,

O R D E R WHEREAS the Disciplinary Authority, after a careful consideration of the charges, findings of I.O. and other documents related to the Disciplinary Proceedings decided to impose major penalty of "removal from the service" on Shri S. K. Kajal, Asstt. Director (u/s), State Office, KVIC, Goa as prescribed under Regulation No.9(vi) of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003. AND WHEREAS, the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing the major penalty of "removal from the service" on Shri S.K.Kajal, Asstt.Director (u/s) was issued vide Order No.VIG/Khadi/O/12/2012-13/22 dated

29.4/1.5.2013. AND WHEREAS, Shri S. K. Kajal vide letter dated 10.06.2013 had preferred an Appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority. AND WHEREAS, the Hon'ble Chairman, KVIC being the Appellate Authority after due consideration of the contents of Appeal alongwith the records/material facts has agreed with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority i.e. imposition of major penalty of "removal from the service" on Shri S.K. Kajal, Asstt.Director (u/s). The appeal thus stands disposed off. AND THEREFORE, the undersigned as per the provisions contained in Regulation No.24 of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003 hereby convey the above decision of the Appellate Authority. Sd/-

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER To Shri S.K. Kajal, Ex-Asstt.Director(KVIC) Resident of Plot No.GPD 2-6 Type, Government of Goa Quarters, Porvorim, Bardez (Goa-403 001. Copy to:-1. Dy.CEO, Zonal Office (WZ), Mumbai.

¶2Director (Admn.), KVIC, Mumbai.

¶3Director (Audit), KVIC, Mumbai.

¶4State Director, KVIC, Goa.' to the learned counsel the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal prosecution initiated against him. As to what is the effect of such acquittal on the disciplinary proceedings is a matter that can be raised before the Appellate Authority in the first instance. Even otherwise, a reading of the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 would indicate that the order passed is in complete breach of the CCA Regulations and the appeal has not been considered in accordance with what is prescribed by Regulation 23 of the CCA Regulations. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the CCA Regulations do not provide for oral hearing before the appeal is decided.

¶15In my opinion, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is in complete non-compliance with the provisions of Regulation 23 of the CCA Regulations and also in breach of the principles of natural justice. The order is not a reasoned order. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo have been considered except for stating that the Appellate Authority agreed with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.

¶16Considering that a major penalty has been imposed that of removal from service and having regard to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it would be appropriate if the Appellate Authority considers the appeal afresh and decides the same on merits in accordance with the provisions of the CCA Regulations after hearing the petitioner.

¶17The impugned order dated 06.08.2013 which conveys the decision of the Appellate Authority, of having agreed with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty, is set aside. Hence, the following Order:- ORDER

(a) The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside.

(b) The Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh and in consonance with the provision of Regulation 23 of the CCA Regulations after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(c) The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 21.08.2023 at 11:00AM when the Appellate Authority will intimate the schedule of hearing to the petitioner. This shall be construed as sufficient notice to the petitioner.

(d) The appeal shall be heard on its own merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner is permitted to amend the appeal memo.

(f) The appeal to be decided as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of 4 months from

21.08.2023.

¶16The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶17The petition is disposed of. No costs.

M. S. KARNIK, J MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Date: 2023.07.25 17:14:11 +05'30'

Maria S. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2014 Shri S. K. Kajal, son of Shri K. Kajal, of major age, Indian National, resident of Plot No.GPD-2-6 Type, Government of Goa Quarters, Porvorim, Bardez-Goa- 403 001. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Directorate of Vigilance, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, having office at 3, IRLA Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-56. 2. Khadi & Village Industries Commission, having office at 3, IRLA Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-56. 3. The Chairman, Directorate of Vigilance, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, having office at 3, IRLA Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-56. …Respondents Ms S. Bangera, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr S. N. Joshi, Advocate with Ms Shweta S. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondents. _______________________ CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J DATED: 20th JULY 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 06.08.2013 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Directorate of Khadi & Village Industries, thereby conveying to the petitioner that his appeal filed before the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty of removal from service of the petitioner is disposed of as the appellate authority agreed with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty of 'removal from service' on the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Director in the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Goa for 30 years. On 09.01.2009 a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner alleging misconduct of demanding illegal gratification. The petitioner was suspended. Inquiry proceeded against the petitioner. The petitioner did not remain present on the date scheduled for the inquiry. The inquiry proceeded ex-parte. The inquiry officer returned the findings that the charges levelled are proved. 4. The disciplinary authority, i.e. the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 01.05.2013 came to the conclusion that the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner has been proved and established. It was observed that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity for submitting his reply/representation. As the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the charge established against the petitioner is very grave, the punishment of penalty of 'removal from the service' of the petitioner was imposed in terms of Regulation No.9 (ix) of KVIC E (CCA) Regulations, 2003, (`CCA Regulations', for short). 5. An appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority on various grounds which form part of the appeal memo. The decision of the Appellate Authority was conveyed to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 in terms of the CCA Regulations. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry proceeded in breach of the principles of natural justice. According to her the petitioner was not granted an adequate opportunity to represent his case before the Inquiry Officer. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the notices which are referred to in the Inquiry Officer's report were never served on the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner always wanted to participate in the inquiry; that the inquiry was conducted in utter haste and in complete defiance of the principles of natural justice. My attention is invited to the findings of the Inquiry Officer to submit that the factum of service of notices on the dates fixed is not supported by any material on record. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not a reasoned order. She invited my attention to the appeal memo to submit that the Appellate Authority has not adverted to any of the con