Punishment based on Board advice is unsustainable unless the advice is first furnished to the employee.

A departmental charge-sheet was issued against the respondent alleging, inter alia, that he had made an unauthorized entry in his name in official records and had failed to call for objections before passing a resolution. The inquiry officer found the first charge proved but the second charge not proved.

The Disciplinary Authority initially proposed stoppage of two increments without future effect, and thereafter stoppage of four increments, but the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board rejected both recommendations and advised dismissal from service. Acting on that advice, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent.

The respondent’s departmental appeal was dismissed on 17 August 2001.

The Tribunal converted the dismissal into compulsory retirement and directed payment of compassionate pension and other admissible dues.

The respondent thereafter approached the High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the Board’s advice, on which the punishment was based, had not been supplied to the respondent as required by Rule 26 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997.

The dismissal was therefore unsustainable; considering the lapse of approximately 20 years and the respondent’s 13 years of service, the Single Judge directed payment of pension and retiral benefits.

The District Development Officer challenged that order by way of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether, under Rule 26 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997, the advice of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board must be supplied to the concerned Panchayat servant before a punishment based on that advice is imposed.

Whether the order of dismissal could be sustained when the Disciplinary Authority imposed it solely on the basis of the Board’s advice without furnishing that advice to the respondent.

Whether, after the lapse of approximately 20 years, the matter should be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority or the respondent should instead be granted pension and retiral benefits.

Rule 26 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 mandates that where a punishment is imposed on the basis of the advice of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, a copy of that advice must be supplied to the Panchayat servant before the final punishment order is passed.

Non-compliance with this mandatory procedural safeguard vitiates the punishment order founded on the Board’s advice.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in B.L. Jadav v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 (2) G.L.H. 334, which recognized the mandatory nature of furnishing the Board’s advice to the delinquent employee.

The record established that the Disciplinary Authority had initially recommended only minor penalties—stoppage of two increments and subsequently stoppage of four increments—but imposed dismissal only after the Board rejected those recommendations and positively advised dismissal.

Thus, dismissal was not an independent determination by the Disciplinary Authority but was imposed directly on the basis of the Board’s advice.

Since the advice was not supplied to the respondent before the punishment order, the mandatory requirement under Rule 26 was violated.

The learned Single Judge therefore correctly held that the dismissal could not be sustained.

Given the substantial delay of approximately 20 years, the Court approved the decision not to remit the proceedings and to grant pension and other retiral benefits having regard to the respondent’s 13 years of service.

It affirmed that the dismissal was unsustainable because the Board’s advice, which formed the sole basis of the punishment, had not been furnished to the respondent as mandated by Rule 26.

The directions to pay the respondent pension and other admissible retiral benefits by taking into account his 13 years of service were consequently maintained.