Back
2006 Supreme(Guj) 184
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.R.BRAHMBHATT
CHATURBHUJ A.SAHU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 7194 Of 1996
Decided On : 03/09/2006
Headnote:Point in Issue :
Disciplinary proceedings - Delay in conducting - Prayer to quash charge-sheet and order of appointing Inquiry Officer - Also claim for retiral benefits - Admissibility - Scope of.
Head Note :
Service and Employment - Disciplinary proceedings - Delay in conducting - Prayer to quash charge-sheet and order of appointing Inquiry Officer - Also claim for retiral benefits - Admissibility - Scope of - The allegations were with regard to irregularities and dereliction in duty of the year 1980 for which charge-sheet was issued in the year 1983 - It shows that there were no allegations in respect of integrity or honesty of the delinquent and that respondent authorities were not prompt enough in issuing charge-sheet - It is admitted fact that after petitioner submitted his reply to charge sheet on 22.11.1983 even then no action whatsoever had been initiated by the department - The Department woke up when petitioner filed petition and department received notice of the Court - It is at that stage department on 30.09.1996 issued orders appointing Inquiry Officer - The pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and inordinate delay in conducting the same, without pointing out any independent prejudice without any acceptable reasons is in itself a great prejudice to the petitioner - It amounts to arbitrariness hit by Article 14 of Constitution - Court accordingly quashed and set aside impugned orders and directed respondent to accord all retiral benefits to petitioners - Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules, 1965 - Rule 24 - Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959 -Rule 161 (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16.
Held :
The tenor of the charge-sheet though indicate some financial irregularities but the main imputation of the charge-sheet is not in respect of integrity or honesty of the delinquent. The charge-sheet revolved around the misconduct or dereliction of duty or negligence in duty. This factum deserves to be borne in mind while examining the rival contentions of the parties.
[Para 11]
It is an admitted fact that after the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 22.11.1983, no action whatsoever had been initiated by the department. The department had to wake up from its slumber only when the petitioner filed petition and department received notice of the Court and at that time the department thought it fit to issue the order dated 30.09.1996 appointing the Inquiry Officer. Even before that, the petitioner had submitted an application for proceeding on voluntary retirement but without any avail. Ms. Mandavia is right and justified in submitting that there is an inordinate delay in concluding the proceeding after issuance of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet dated 21.02.1982 had not been proceeded at all till 30.09.1996, i.e., only after the petitioner moved this Court. This inertia evinced by the department can well be described by dubbing it as an inordinate delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. The pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and inordinate delay in conducting the same, in itself is a great prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner need not point out any independent prejudice because of delay in disciplinary proceedings.
[Para 12]
The instant case is not merely that of delay in issuance of charge-sheet but it is a case of absolute inertia on the part of respondent department in not taking any action on the charge-sheet dated 21.02.1983 uptil 30.09.1996. The reply affidavit is blissfully silent and do not say about the action taken by the department from 21.02.1983 upto 30.09.1996. There is no whisper much less any justification coming forward in the affidavit in reply for such inertia from 21.02.1983 upto 30.09.1996, thus, the inordinate delay and the fact that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and looking to the charges of derelication in duty and negligence do not deserve to be permitted to stand in the way of the petitioner in realizing his dues. The facts remained to be noted that the stay order came to be granted only in the year 1996 but from 21.02.1983 uptil 30.09.1996, there was absolutely no impediment in the way of the respondents in conducting the inquiry. As it is stated herein above, the affidavit-in-reply does not disclose any justifiable reason for not even appointing the Inquiry Officer or concluding the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. The inordinate delay resulting into protracting the disciplinary proceedings is an omission amounting to arbitrariness hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The non-completion of inquiry proceedings against the petitioner for long period of about 13 years in itself is an arbitrary omission on the part of the respondents. The arbitrariness is directly hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the charge-sheet dated 21.02.1983 and order dated 30.09.1996 appointing the Inquiry Officer deserves to be quashed and set aside as they are contrary to the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12]
Law Laid Down :
The inordinate delay resulting into protracting the disciplinary proceeding is an omission amounting to arbitrariness hit by Article 14 of Constitution.
Case Law Analysis :
P.V. Mahadevan vs. MO. T.N. Housing Board, 2005 (6) SCC 636 [Para 9];; State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan, 1998 (4) SCC 154 [Para 12];; State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp. SCC 738 [Para 12].- Relied on
Conclusion :
Inordinate delay in protracting disciplinary proceedings causes prejudice to delinquent and also amount to arbitration hit by Article 14 and 16 of Constitution - Court as a consequence allowed the petition.
Decided in Favour of :
Petitioner
( 2 ) THE facts in brief deserves to be set out as under:- (1) The petitioner was initially appointed as medical Officer in Gujarat Public Health service, Class-II vide Office Order dated 9th march, 1971 and was posted at village Rupal. His appointment was made on certain terms and conditions like he was required to apply to the Gujarat Public Service Commission for selection to the post and he was to be treated as a regular appointer on selection by Gujarat public Service Commission. The order of initial appointment of the petitioner is at annexure " A to the petition. The petitioner was duly selected by the Gujarat Public service Commission and he came to be appointed on regular basis vide order dated 20th March, 1973, which is produced at Annexure " B. The petitioner has stated that during his tenure as Medical Officer, Class-II, Primary Health centre, Modasa, District : Sabarkantha in the year 1983, he was served with a chargesheet issued by then Director, Health Medical services and Medical Education (Health)Ahmedabad dated 21st January, 1983. The chargesheet was mainly on the point of negligence, dereliction in duty and lack of vigilance on his part in discharging his duties as Government servant. The chargesheet is produced at Annexure " C, which indicates that the crux of the chargesheet was that of dereliction in duty, negligence and lack of vigilance in his administrative duties. Ofcourse, some of the negligence pertaining to some cash advances also. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet vide communication dated 22nd November, 1983 denying all the charges levelled against him. The respondents for quite long time seems to have not initiated any action against the petitioner after he submitted the reply to the chargesheet. (2) The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under his communication dated 26th august, 1996 and submitted to the authorities that, this be treated as three month s notice under Rule 161 (2) of the BCS Rules, 1959 and as no action was taken thereon, he was constrained to move this Court by filing present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
( 3 ) THIS court issued notice on 21st September, 1996, which was made returnable on 11th october, 1996. The respondents issued order dated 30th September, 1996 appointing the inquiry Officer in the matter and the petitioner has by way of amendment, placed the said order on record and added the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30th september, 1996.
( 4 ) THE matter was admitted and Rule was issued vide order dated 30th October, 1996. While issuing Rule and granting interim relief, this court (Coram: Ms. R. M. Doshit, J.) passed the following order :-"rule. By way of interim order, it is directed that respondents shall not proceed further with the disciplinary action instituted against the petitioner by issuing chargesheet on 21. 2. 83. It is further directed that the issuance of the said chargesheet as well as the pendency of the disciplinary action which is sought to be initiated under order dated 30. 9. 96, shall not be treated as a factor against the petitioner in grant of any service benefits to the petitioner. D. S. Permitted. "
( 5 ) THE matter seems to have been appearing in the board time and again but no reply had been filed by the respondents for quite some time.
( 6 ) THE petitioner was constrained to file Civil application No. 11885 of 2000 in Special Civil application, inter-alia praying therein that the pe
