Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 848
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
V.P. Jinjuwadia - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 3181 of 2002
Decided On : 17-06-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Pradeep Patel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Government Pleader
Breach of rule 10(2) of the Rules, 1971 and the principles of natural justice led to the quashing of the impugned order of cut in the pension by way of penalty.
Headnote:
PENSION - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 - The court discussed the breach of rule 10(2) of the Rules, 1971, the joint inquiry, delay in initiating the inquiry, and the non-speaking order. The court found that the State Government committed an error in passing the impugned order and allowed the writ-application, quashing the impugned order of cut in the pension by way of penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Government servant, filed a writ-application seeking to quash the impugned order of deduction of Rs. 200.00 per month from the pension for a period of five years by way of penalty. The charges related to the inferior quality of work undertaken of a dam, and the State Government imposed the penalty after the petitioner's retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, there was an inordinate delay in initiating the inquiry, and the State Government breached rule 10(2) of the Rules, 1971. The court allowed the writ-application and quashed the impugned order of cut in the pension by way of penalty.
Issues: Breach of rule 10(2) of the Rules, 1971, joint inquiry causing prejudice, delay in initiating the inquiry, and non-speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, there was an inordinate delay in initiating the inquiry, and the State Government breached rule 10(2) of the Rules, 1971, which led to the quashing of the impugned order of cut in the pension by way of penalty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ-application and quashed the impugned order of cut in the pension by way of penalty.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired Government servant, has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Be pleased to admit this petition;
(b) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12-2-2002 ordering to deduct Rs. 200 p.m. from the pension of the petitioner for a period of 5 years, at Annexure E to the petition, by declaring the same as arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, illegal, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution;
(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to pass appropriate orders, staying implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 12-2-2002 at Annexure E to the petition and direct the respondents not to deduct a sum of Rs. 200/- p.m. from the amount of pension paid to the petitioner.
(d) Be pleased to pass appropriate orders, imposing heavy cost on the respondents;
(e) Be pleased to pass any other and further order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner had joined the services of the State Government almost 39 years before the date of filing of this writ-application. He retired from service in the year 1996. In the year 1986, the authorities concerned took a decision to initiate a departmental inquiry on certain alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by him in the year 1980-81 while he was serving as a Deputy Executive Engineer, Chotila Panchayat Sub-Division. In all, the charge-sheet with six charges was served upon the petitioner on 29th October 1986.
3. By and large, the charges relate to the inferior quality of work undertaken of a dam. On 7th February 1987, the Inquiry Officer was appointed. On 3rd July 1991, the statement of defence was filed by the petitioner. On 5th June 1992, the Inquiry Officer filed his report, stating that the charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not held to be established, whereas, the charge No. 4 was held to be partially established.
4. It appears from the show-cause notice dated 15th June 1998 issued upon the petitioner that the State Government accepted the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer so far as the charge Nos. 2, 4 and 6 were concerned. However, the Government disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer so far as the charge Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were concerned. The State Government called upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the charge Nos. 1, 3 and 5 should not be held to be established. Thus, it appears that although the petitioner attained superannuation in the year 1996, yet by a deeming fiction he continued to be in service for the purpose of the departmental inquiry.
5. The disciplinary authority, i.e. the State Government, by order dated 12th February 2002, imposed a penalty of cut of Rs. 200.00 per month from the pension for a period of five years.
6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with this writ-application.
7. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the State Government committed a serious error in passing the impugned order of deduction of Rs. 200.00 per month from the pension for a period of five years by way of penalty.
8. He submitted that the inquiry itself could be said to have been vitiated on the ground that for the acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed in the year 1980-81, the departmental charge-sheet came to be issued on 29th October 1986. According to him, there was a gross delay in initiating the departmental action against his client. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M.N. Mevada v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 2 SLR 666, and also the decision reported in the case of Chaturbhuj A. Sahu v. State of Gujarat and another, (2006) 3 GLR 2007.
