Back
1999 Supreme(Guj) 667
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.THAKKER, D.P.Buch
CHHATRASINH N.CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY - Respondent
S.C.A. 490 of 1993
Decided On : 12/01/1999
Headnote:Gujarat State Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 - Rules 9 & 10 - Quashing departmental inquiry and getting retiral benefit - Art. 226 of Constitution of India invoked - A day prior to retirement on March 30, 1992 reply to show cause notice submitted - Inquiry did not proceed further - SCA 499 of 1993 filed - Single Judge granted interim relief on condition - Benefits received furnishing security and undertaking - Respondent failed to complete inquiry as directed by Single Judge - Direction to respondent sought for releasing full amount - Single Judge dismissed the petition - Order of dismissal challenged in LPA - Held, no error was committed by Single Judge in rejecting the petition to quash inquiry - Ordinarily under Art. 226 High Court exercising extra- ordinary power does not quash departmental inquiry - Appellant received benefit on condition - Cannot be relieved from undertaking or discharged from security - Respondent directed to complete inquiry expeditiously - Illness and health be considered of appellant.
Court may clarify that it is open to the appellant and/or his counsel to take all contentions available at law and any observations made either by the learned single Judge or by this Court in the present proceedings would not be construed to mean that the point is decided against the appellant since in the present proceedings, a prayer is made for quashing departmental proceedings. The authority will decide such contentions in accordance with law. The authority will complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible.
[Para 13]
So far as direction regarding payment of gratuity amount and 50% of commuted pension is concerned, the appellant was required to furnish security and to give an undertaking. Those directions were complied with and payment was made. But for such directions in an interim order, the appellant could not have received the amount.
When the payment was made to the appellant on certain conditions, he cannot contend after receiving the payment that he should be relieved from such undertaking or discharged from security. The submission is, therefore, rejected.
[Para 14]
It was, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even otherwise, the appellant was entitled to the said amount. If it is so, it is open to the appellant to take that contention before the authority and the authority will pass appropriate order. Considering ill-health of the appellant, it is directed that the authority will not fix date of further proceeding of inquiry before February 1, 2000.
[Para 15]
For the foregoing reasons and with the above directions, LPA deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
[Para 16]
( 1 ) THE appellant -petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside an inquiry instituted against him and for getting retiral benefits.
( 2 ) THE case of the appellant was that he was serving as Superintending Engineer. On 31/03/1992, he retired from service after office hours. A day before his superannuation, i. e. on 30/03/1992, he was served with a charge sheet containing allegations of irregularities said to have been committed by him between 1981 and 1985. He submitted his reply. The departmental inquiry, however, was not proceeed further. It is in these circumstances that he approached this Court by filing SCA No. 490 of 1993. The matter came up for admission before the learned Single Judge. Notice was issued to the respondents and was made returnable on 27/01/1993. No affidavit was filed and the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 16/07/1993, the learned Single Judge admitted the petition and by way of interim relief, it was directed that the petitioner should be paid his gratuity amount on his furnishing security before the authority making the payment and his filing an undertaking in this Court that he would refund the amount to the respondent in case his petition is dismissed. Regarding commuted pension, a direction was issued to the authority to allow to commute pension as per Rules and the petitioner would be paid 50% of commuted pension on his furnishing security for similar amount.
( 3 ) IT appears that earlier, interim relief was granted against proceeding with the inquiry which came to be vacated and it was observed:"the earlier interim relief against further prosecution of the inquiry proceedings is vacated, It will be open for the respondents to proceed with further inquiry and the outcome of the departmental proceedings shall be placed on the file of this court. It is expected that the respondents will expeditiously complete the inquiry, preferably within six months from today. D,s. permitted. " (emphasis supplied ).
( 4 ) IT was the case of the appellant that the inquiry was not completed and hence, CA No. 1636 of 1994 was filed by the appellant for interim relief in terms of para 9 which read as under:"the applicant,therefore, prays that - (a) your Lordships may be pleased to direct the opponents to release the remaining amount of commuted pension against the undertaking before this Honourable court; (b) your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the opponents have not availed the adequate opportunity of proceedings of the inquiry against the applicant and having remained idle for a year, they have run out of the limitation of six months imposed by this Honourable court and therefore they are not entitled to proceed with the inquiry now onwards without explaining the reasons for their owns delay and latches, based on the principle of Volenti non fit injuria; (c) your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit. "
( 5 ) WHEN notice of that application was served upon the respondents, an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Joint Secretary,narmada and Water Resources Department. So far as papers of LPA are concerned, date is not mentioned but it appears that it was solemnly affirmed in October 1994. It was stated at the Bar by learned counsel for the appellant that it was filed in court in 1998 and a copy was served to him on 12/08/1998.
( 6 ) IT was inter alia stated in the affidavit that the incident came to the knowledge of the department , for the first time ,in 1985 (though the figure mentioned is of 1965 there appears to be an error because the incident relates to the period between 1981 and 1985 ). Thereafter, preliminary inquiry was conducted and a reference was made to the independent authority. Said authority recommended to take disciplinary action against 35 delinquents. As per recommendation of the independent authority, departmental proceedings were initiate
